*M^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Library  of  Dr.  A.  A.  Hod^e.      Presented. 


BV  63i  .P6 

Plumer,  William  S.  1802- 

1880. 
The  substance  of  an  argumei 

against  the  indiscriminate 


THE    SUBSTANCE 


AN   ARGUMENT 


AGAINST  THE 


INDISCRIMINATE  INCORPORATION  OF  CHURCHES 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES. 


Delivered  before  the  Committee  of  Courts  of  Justice  of  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates of  Virginia,  on  the  evening  of  the  8th  of  January,  and  on  subsequent 
evenings,  in  A.  D.  1846,  in  reply  to  James  Lyons  and  Wm.  H.  Macfar- 
LAND,  Es<is. 


BY  WM.  S.  PLUMER. 


35  a  1 1  f  m  0 1  f : 

PRINTED     ATTHE     P  U  B  L  I  C  A  T  I  O  N    R  O  O  M  S  , 
NO.    7    SOUTH    LIBERTY    STREET. 

1847. 


To  the  people  of  Virginia  this  "  Argument"  is  respectfully  and  gratefully 
inscribed,  as  an  evidence  of  the  Author's  aidmiration  of  the  general  wisdom 
of  the  legislation  of  "  the  Mother  of  States  and  Statesmen"  on  the  subject  of 
civil  and  religious  freedom. 

WM.  S.  PLUMER. 
Baltimore,  Md.,  1847. 


THE    SUBSTANCE 


AN   ARGUMENT  AGAINST 


INDISCRIMINATE  INCORPORATION   OF   CHURCHES 

AND 

RELIGIOUS    SOCIETIES. 


Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee : 

I  wish  it  understood  throughout  this  discussion  that  I  am  the  chosen 
representative  of  no  one,  that  I  act  on  my  own  responsibihty  alone, 
and  that  I  appear  before  you  solely  in  the  capacity  of  a  citizen,  who, 
though  humble,  has  rights,  who,  though  feeble,  wishes  to  defend  those 
rights,  and  who,  though  standing  alone  before  you,  believes  that  the 
interests  of  millions  of  the  present  and  of  future  generations  will  be 
affected  by  your  decision. 

On  some  subjects  a  great  deal  ought  to  be  said,  or  nothing.  This  is 
one  of  them.  I  do  not,  therefore,  promise  to  be  brief.  I  do,  however, 
promise  that  I  will  not  intentionally  waste  your  time. 

I  could  have  wished  that  a  subject  of  so  vast  importance,  one  side 
of  which  is  supported  by  gentlemen  so  able  and  so  estimable,  could 
have  had  on  the  other  side  also  an  advocate  worthy  of  its  dignity. 
What  is  my  rude  armor  against  the  polished,  practised  lances  of  these 
powerful  giants  of  the  law  ?  '  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  I  fear  and  trem- 
ble, until  I  think  of  the  goodness  of  my  cause.  My  reliance  is  not  on 
tact  or  strength,  but  on  truth,  and  that  truth  illustrated  by  the  uniform 
principles  of  human  nature,  and  by  the  history  of  the  world  for  fifteen 
hundred  years. 


'riiis  movement  is  not  of  recent  oriofin.  I  have  watched  it  for  years- 
I  have  ever  had  but  one  opinion  concerning  its  tendency.  I  believe  it 
fraught  with  incalculable  evils — evils  not  the  less  alarming  because  not 
apprehended.  It  has  been  well  said,  that  "  Men  are  wise  and  good  in 
the  business  of  all  times  except  their  own."  Some  legislation  is  like 
putting  down  pebbles  in  a  walk.  One  more,  or  one  less,  makes  no 
perceptible  difference.  But  some  legislation  has  a  power  like  the  cen- 
tral orb  of  the  solar  system.  It  carries  worlds  after  it.  It  is  so,  if  I 
mistake  not,  here.  A  principle,  somewhat  novel  to  our  system,  is  to 
be  introduced,  and  the  widest  possible  application  is  forthwith  to  he 
made  of  it.  Should  the  contemplated  change  be  made  in  the  course 
of  otir  laws,  the  good  or  evil  which  will  result  will  be  on  a  vast  scale. 

I  may  as  well  here  state,  once  for  all  and  most  explicitty,  that  I  have 
no  doubt  the  petitioners  are  all  worthy  persons,  animated  by  patriotic 
sentiments,  and  entitled  to  as  much  esteem  as  any  equal  number  of 
people  in  the  Commonwealtli.  I  believe  that  they  deprecate  the  evils 
which  I  apprehend,  as  earnestly  as  any  other  persons.  I  esteem  the 
petitioners  as  highly  as  they  esteem  one  another.  It  gives  me  real 
pleasure  to  say  so,  and  it  gives  me  real  pain  to  oppose  them. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  on  the  whole  I  come  reluctant- 
ly to  this  discussion.  Indeed,  a  high  sense  of  duty,  and  a  sincere  de- 
sire for  the  best  interests  of  this  Commonwealth,  make  me  willing  to 
contribute  my  mite,  on  any  proper  occasion,  towards  the  public  good. 
Nor  will  I  deny  that  I  have  great  pleasure  in  knowing  that  in  this  dis- 
cussion, measures  and  not  motives,  principles  and  not  persons,  great 
interests  and  not  merely  local  questions,  are  the  subject  of  debate.  It 
is  refreshing  to  the  intellect,  it  is  in  itself  wise  and  profitable  some- 
times to  withdraw  from  petty  details  and  look  at  fundamental  truths. 
The  fifteenth  article  of  our  Bill  of  Rights  well  asserts,  that  it  is  "  only 
by  a  frequent  recurrence  to  fundamental  principles  that  free  government 
or  the  blessings  of  liberty  can  be  preserved." 

I  am  also  gratified  that  over  this  subject  the  violence  of  party  poli- 
tic can  have  no  influence.  If  blessings  flow  from  granting  the  chief 
prayer  of  the  petition,  all  parties  will  share  them  ;  if  evils,  all  parties 
must  endure  them.  This  subject,  like  that  of  Education,  oaths,  lotte- 
ries, and  criminal  law  in  many  of  its  details,  reaches  the  morals  and 
religion  of  the  country  none  the  less  powerfully  because  indirectly. 
It  has,  as  I  believe,  and  expect  to  show,  a  very  intimate  connection 
with  liberty,  civil  and  religious  ;  and  I  would  wish  ever  to  be  so  a 
friend  of  religion  as  not  to  forget  to  be  the  friend  of  freedom,  and  so 
the  friend  of  freedom  as  not  to  be  the  enemy  of  religion.     While  there- 


fore,  I  neither  am,  nor  admire  a  political  Iheologian  nor  a  theological 
politician,  and  while  I  never  have  divested  myself  of  the  right  to  read 
and  judge  and  modestly  to  express  my  opinion  on  any  matter  affecting 
my  country,  even  by  going  to  the  polls  and  voting  for  whom  I  pleased 
(especially  if  any  one  said  I  should  not ;)  yet  I  have  never  debated  in 
the  newspapers  or  elsewhere  the  party  politics  of  our  country.  I  shall 
not  do  it  now. 

Nor  is  this  a  question  between  different  branches  of  the  Christian 
Church.  It  promises  good  or  ill  to  all  according  to  your  decision  ;  for 
the  petitioners  expressly  say  :  "  They  do  not  ask  for  themselves  any 
privilege  or  immunity,  which  they  do  not  desire  to  see  extended  to 
their  brethren  of  all  other  denominations.  It  would  offend  no  less 
against  their  own  sense  of  what  is  right  and  proper,  than  against  the 
principles  of  our  institutions,  to  bestow  on  any  religious  denomination 
privileges,  which  were  not  made  free  and  open  to  all."  You  are  not 
then  called,  sir,  to  listen  to  a  debate,  full  of  the  odiu7n  theologimm. 

I  am  also  happy  in  knowing  that  the  petitioners,  and  myself  are 
alike  agreed,  that  true  religion,  vital  godliness,  an  enlightened  christian 
ministry,  and  solemn  acts  of  public  worship  are  essential  to  the  well- 
being  of  nations.  Of  this  truth  history  is  a  witness  hardly  less  clear 
in  its  declarations  than  revelation  itself.  This  is  not  a  contest,  there- 
fore, between  religion  and  irreligion,  but  it  is  a  question  as  to  the  best 
mode  of  promoting  religion,   and  other  great  interests  of  the  country. 

CHURCH    PROPERTY    NOW    SECUSE. 

Nor  is  the  question  whether  houses  of  worship,  and  their  appurten- 
ances, parsonages,  denominational  school-houses,  burying  grounds,  &e. 
shall  be  protected.  All  are  agreed  that  they  oiight  to  be,  I  contend 
that  they  are  already  as  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  wrong-doer  in  this 
as  in  any  part  of  the  world.  First,  there  is  thrown  around  them  the 
sanction  of  public  sentiment  and  public  manners,  more  powerful  than 
all  laws.  "  Quid  leges  sine  moribus  ?"  So  long  as  this  kind  of  pro- 
perty is  safe  at  all,  it  is  safe  under  the  uniform,  universal  sentiment  of 
Virginia.  The  petitioners  have  not  stated,  nor  will  those  who  repre- 
sent them  state  a  single  case  of.  abuse  of .  property  of  this  descrip- 
tion. If  they  shall,  it  will  be  but  as  a  drop  in  the  bucket,  compared 
with  the  enormous  perversions  of  church  property  in  States,  which  have 
pursued  a  line  of  policy,  such  as  is  now  sought  to  be  introduced  into 
our  laws.  Besides  those  bones  of  contention,  free  churches,  and 
churches  for  many  years  utterly  forsaken  by  the  denomination,  which 
erected  them,  I  have  never  known  it  alleged  that  any  house  of  wor- 
ship in  the  Commonwealth  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  those   who 


6 

perverted  it  to  wrong  ends,  except  in  one  instance.  This  house  stood 
on  a  piece  of  land,  to  which  a  title  had  never  been  made  by  the  proprie- 
tor. It  came  into  the  possession  of  a  mechanic.  For  many  years  no 
man  had  expressed  a  desire  to  use  it  as  a  place  of  worship.  There 
were  in  the  whole  county  not  three  people  belonging  to  the  denomina- 
tion, which  had  erected  it,  and  none  of  them  were  in  its  vicinity.  It 
was  rapidly  going  to  decay.  So  the  proprietor  of  the  land  pulled  down 
the  house,  and  used  the  timber  in  the  erection  of  a  shop  for  his  own 
use.  From  that  day  public  confidence  was  withdrawn  from  him,  and 
he  was  ere  long  compelled  for  the  want  of  patronage  to  leave  the  coun- 
ty. Such  is  public  opinion,  and  so  certainly  are  its  judgments  execu- 
ted on  all,  who  violate  in  this  matter  the  dictates  of  propriety.  Nor 
are  our  houses  of  worship  and  appurtenances  left  merely  to  this  great 
safeguard,  for — 

Secondly,  we  have  recourse  to  trusteeships.  In  this  way  the 
greatej  part  of  such  property  is  held.  Where  have  trustees  by  any 
delinquency  wronged  the  rightful  proprietors  ?  I  will  not  say  that  no 
such  case  has  occurred.  I  can  say  that  I  never  heard  of  one  in  "Vir- 
ginia. The  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  neither  have  cited,  nor  will 
cite  such  a  case.  I  will  cite  a  case  on  the  other  side — a  case  known 
to  some,  who  hear  me.  Some  years  since  the  doctrines  of  the  Reform- 
ers (Campbellites)  made  considerable  progress  in  one  of  the  large 
Baptist  churches  in  Va.  A  warm  state  of  feeling  ensued.  The  Reg- 
ular Baptists  had  the  majority,  but  the  only  surviving  trustee  was  a 
Reformer.  He  held  the  property  and  could  in  law  have  retained  ex- 
clusive possession.  But  he  never  thought  of  such  a  thing.  I  have 
heard  that  he  was  a  high-minded,  honorable  man.  I  believe  he  was. 
But  if  his  principles  had  been  weak,  that  public  sentiment,  already 
noticed,  would  have  soon  overcome  the  strongest  reluctance  to  equity. 
But, — 

Thirdly,  the  Legislature  nf  Virginia  on  the  3rd  of  February,  1842 
passed  a  law,  providing  for  any  cases,  that  might  possibly  arise.  This 
law  may  be  found  in  '•  Acts  of  Assembly"  1841 — 2  chap.  102,  p.  60. 
and  is  as  follows  : 

1.  "  J9e  it  enacted  by  the  Genercd  Assembly,  That  where  any  lot. 
or  part  of  a  lot,  tract  or  parcel  of  land  has  been  heretofore  conveyed 
or  devised  or  shall  hereafter  be  conveyed  or  devised  to  one  or  more 
trustees  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  any  religious  congregation,  as  and  for 
a  place  of  public  worship,  the  same,  and  all  the  buildings,  and  other 
improvements  thereupon,  shull  be  held  by  such  trustee  or  trustees  (and 
their  successors)  for  the  purposes  of  the  trust,  and  not  otherwise. 

2.  And  be  It  further  enacted.  That  where  any  conveyance  or  de- 


vise  shall  hereafter  be  made  of  such  property  for  the  use  and  benefit, 
and  purpose  aforesaid,  the  same  shall  not  be  void  or  frustrated  by  reason 
of  the  want  of  trustees  to  take  and  hold  the  same  in  trust ;  but  trustees 
may  be  appointed  in  the  manner  hereafter  directed. 

3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  where  such  conveyance  or  de- 
vise has  heretofore  been  made  to  a  trustee  or  trustees,  or  where  such 
conveyance  or  devise  shall  hereafter  be  made,  whether  by  the  interven- 
tion of  trustees  or  not,  the  circuit  superior  court  of  law  and  chancery 
of  the  county  or  corporation  where  such  property  is  or  may  be  situate 
shall,  on  application  of  the  attorney  for  the  Commonwealth  on  behalf 
of  the  authorized  authorities  of  any  such  religious  congregation,  have 
full  power  and  authority  to  appoint  trustees  originally  where  there 
were  none,  or  to  substitute  others  from  time  to  time,  in  cases  of  death, 
refusal  or  neglect  to  act,  removal  from  the  county  or  corporation  or 
other  inability  to  execute  the  trust  beneficially  and  conveniently  ;  and 
the  legal  title  shall  thereupon  become  exclusively  vested  in  the  whole 
number  of  the  then  trustees  and  their  successors. 

4.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  a  majority  of  the  acting  trus- 
tees of  any  such  congregation  may  sue  and  be  sued  in  their  own  names, 
in  relation  to  the  title,  possession  or  enjoyment  of  such  property 
without  abatement  by  the  death  of  any  of  the  trustees,  or  the  substitu- 
tion of  others  ;  but  the  action  or  suit  may  notwithstanding  be  prosecu- 
ted to  its  final  termination  in  the  names  of  the  trustees  by  or  against 
whom  the  same  was  instituted,  and  all  other  proceedings  had  in  rela- 
tion thereto,  in  like  manner  as  if  such  death  or  substitution  had  not  oc- 
curred ;  Provided,  hoivcver,  that  such  trustees  for  the  use  of  any  reli- 
gious congregation  shall  not  hereafter  take  or  hold  at  any  one  time  any 
tract  of  land  in  the  country  exceeding  in  quantity  thirty  acres,  or  in  any 
incorporated  town  exceeding  two  acres  ;  nor  shall  such  real  property 
be  held  by  them  for  any  other  use  than  as  a  place  of  public  worship, 
relio-ious  or  other  instruction,  burial  ground  and  residence  of  their  min- 
ister. 

5.  This  act  shall  be  in  force  from  the  passing  thereof." 

What  further  protection  could  be  desired?  Where  are  the  "indis- 
criminate indifference  and  neglect,"  which  are  so  much  complained  of 
in  the  petition?  Are  not  two  acres  of  ground  in  the  town,  and  thirty 
acres  in  the  country  sufficient?  I  am  happy  to  be  able  thus  to  vindi- 
cate the  State  from  every  suspicion  of  fostering  anti-christian  laws  and 
usages.  I  wish  also  to  add  that  the  gentlemen  greatly  erred  in  saying 
that  jockey  clubs  had  corporate  rights  in  Virginia. 

Nor  is  the    question  which  I  shall  discuss,  whether  the  General  As- 


sembly  shall  grant  to  religions  societies  of  any  description  swch  legal 
privileges  as  upon  their  individual  application,  may  be  judged  safe  and 
proper.  Let  each  case  be  presented  upon  its  own  merits,  let  its  objects 
be  carefully  enquired  into,  and  let  the  Legislature  act  as  shall  seem 
right.  The  General  Assembly  possesses  and  exercises  that  power 
now.  Never  have  I  moved  a  finger  to  prevent  any  sister  church  from 
securing  any  immunity  she  may  desire  from  the  State.  My  motto  has 
always  been,  Non  nostrum  inter  vos  tantas  domponere  lites. 

In  the  petition  before  you  two  such  objects  are  sought.  One  is  an 
act  of  incorporation  for  a  Theological  Seminary  ;  the  other  a  charter  for 
a  fund  for  the  widows  and  orphans  of  deceased  clergymen.  Both  of  these 
appertain  to  one  denomination.  I  shall  say  nothing  in  favor  of  grant- 
ing them,  at  least  until  asked  to  do  so.  Should  I  ultroneoUsly  urge  the 
granting  of  these  prayers  I  should  expect  to  hear  the  cry — 
Non  tali  auxilio. 

\  shall  certainly  say  nothing  against  granting  them. 

I  am  not  unmindful  that  these  preliminary  remarks  are  protracted. 
All  I  have  to  say  in  excuse  is,  they  are  necessary.  In  felling  a  tree  it 
is  sometimes  best  to  spend  a  few  minutes  in  cutting  away  the'under- 
growth. 

What  then  is  the  question  ?     It  is  this  :  Shall  the  Legislature  by 

A  GENERAL  LAW  CREATE  AS  MANY  RELIGIOUS  CORPORATIONS  AS  THERE 
ARE  CONGREGATIONS  AND  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  IN  THE  StATE  ?       This  is 

the  question.  This  is  the  sole  question,  which  I  shall  discuss.  It  is 
the  great  question  presented  in  the  petition  before  you.  It  asks  for 
"  a  laAV  authorizing  the  religious  congregations  to  hold  property,  &lc. 
It  asks  for  a  law  "  to  enable  them  to  hold  and  transmit  property."  It 
speaks  more  than  once  of  "  corporate  rights."  That  this  is  what  was 
intended  to  be  sought  may  be  learned  from  the  Southern  Churchman, 
of  August  30,  1844,  where  a  general  law  is  emphatically  spoken  of. 
The  Journals  of  the  Episcopal  Convention  for  a  year  or  two  past  show 
that  a  general  and  comprehensive  system  of  incorporation  is  contem- 
plated. 

Thus  in  the  "Journal  of  the  Convention"  for  1844,  p.  25,  I  find 
this  record : 

"  Mr.  Macfarland  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopt- 
ed :— 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  to  renew  the  application  to  the  Legis- 
lature for  an  act  authorizing  religious,  benevolent  and  literary  societies 
and  institutions  to  hold  property  given,  or  bequeathed  to  them,"  &c. 

Here  is   a  purpose  expressed  of  applying  for  "an  ad,''^  one  single 


act,  one  general  indiscriminate  law.  It  is  also  said  that  they  will  "  re- 
neiv^^  the  application,  clearly  declaring  that  they  had  made  it  before. 
So  in  the  "Journal  of  the  Convention"  for  1845,  p.  33,  the  commit- 
tee appointed  the  previous  year  is  "requested"  "  to  continue"  their 
efforts.     I  take  it  for  granted  that  this  proof  is  sufficient  on  this  point. 

SECTS    IN    VIRGINIA. 

Now  let  us  look  to  the  condition  of  the  Commonwealth.  In  Vir- 
ginia we  have  Baptists,  Episcopal  Methodists,  Presbyterians, "Protes- 
tant Episcopalians,  Protestant  Methodists,  Reformers,  New  School  Pres- 
byterians, Associate  Presbyterians,  German  Reformed,  German  Luth- 
erans, Mennonists,  Friends,  Winebrenarians,  Universalists,  Roman 
Catholics,  Swedenborgians,  and  perhaps  a  few  of  other  names.  These 
constitute  a  large  body  of  adult  persons,  probably  not  less  in  number 
than  one  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  with  a  large  number  of  congrega- 
tions, variously  estimated  from  fifteen  hundred  to  two  thousand.  The 
latter  is  probably  not  far  from  the  truth.  Besides  these,  there  are 
amongst  us  several  congregations  of  Jews,  a  few  Fourierites,  perhaps  a 
number  of  infidels,  possibly  some  atheists,  and  certainly  a  large  num- 
^ber  of  persons,  who  make  no  profession  of  religion,  and  are  supposed 
to  have  no  preferences  to  any  denomination.  Without  intending  the 
slightest  disrespect,  and  solely  for  the  want  of  a  better  name  I  may 
call  them  Nothingarians.  The  sect  of  the  Nothingarians  is  perhaps  the 
largest  in  the  Commonwealth.  It  has  no  creed,  no  churches,  no  disci- 
pline,'but  a  very  large  number  of  members.  It  boasts  of  great  anti- 
quity. It  was  founded  in  the  first  century  in  -Achaia  by  one  Gallio,  of 
whom  it  is  said  :  "  He  cared  for  none  of  these  things." 

It  is  remarkable  that  in  all  I  have  seen  and  heard  from  persons  fa- 
voring the  petition  before  you,  I  have  not  noticed  any  provision  of 
law  proposed  for  any  but  Christian  sects..  The  seed  of  Abraham,  un- 
believers in  divine  revelation,  and  the  great  mass  of  men  indiflfierent  to 
all  forms  of  religion,  seem  not  to  have  been  thought  of. 

A  great  object  of  laws,  fundamental  and  municipal,  is  to  protect  the 
weak  against  the  strong,  the  few  against  the  many.  The  reason  is 
that  the  many  in  free  governments,  and  the  strong  in  all  governments, 
can  protect  themselves.  Are  you  to  favor  the  strong  sects  among  the 
Christians?  By  no  means,  say  the  petitioners  ;  so  say  we  all.  Are 
you  to  give  corporate  powers  to  Romanists?  Do  the  Protestants  of 
this  State  desire  to  see  the  Papacy  have  such  a  power  amongst  us  ? 
Do  Papists  desire  to  see  Protestantism  well  fenced  in  and  well  fed  by 
corporate  property  ?  The  Fourierites,  and  the  infidels,  and  atheists 
would  surely  desire  something.     Is  it  best  to  enable  them  by  law  to 


10 

take,  hold  and  transmit  property  ?  If  you  exalt  one,  or  three  or  four 
influential  denominations,  will  not  the  rest  be  oppressed  ?  If  the  Leg- 
islature enter  largely  upon  this  work  of  granting  corporate  powers 
they  must  either  do  it  blindly,  or  a  large  part  of  their  time  will  be  con- 
sumed in  inquiries  into  the  nature  and  merits  of  the  religious  opinions, 
and  practices  of  the  people  of  the  state.  And  is  any  man  prepared  to 
submit  his  creed  or  his  views  of  church  government  to  the  inquisition 
of  a  legislative  committee?  No,  is  the  universal  answer.  Then,  I  say, 
the  General  Assembly  must  act  indiscriminately,  and  treat  good  and 
bad,  Protestant  and  Romanist,  Jew  and  Gentile,  infidel  and  atheist,  all 
alike. 

However  evil  the  practice  and  corrupt  the  doctrines  of  many  in  the 
State,  they  are  yet  citizens,  and  so  long  as  obedient  to  the  laws  they 
are  entitled  to  every  blessing  or  privilege  which  legislation  can  confer, 
in  common  with  the  most  orthodox  and  pious. 

FREEDOM, NOT  TOLERATION. 

Although  I  would  not  make  a  man  an  offender  for  a  word,  yet  it 
seems  to  me  unfortunate,  that  in  the  petition  before  you,  the  word  "  ?o/- 
eration"  should  have  more  than  once  found  a  place.  I  believe  that 
under  our  government  tolei'ation  of  any  sect  or  opinion  is  absolutely 
impossible.  Liberty,  unqualified  and  the  very  largest,  is  our  birth- 
right. No  man  holds  any  opinion  on  the  subject  of  religion  by  per- 
mission ot  his  fellow-men,  acting  in  any  capacity.  The  State  does 
not,  the  State  cannot,  tolerate  religion  or  irreligion,  nor  can  it  aid  tjither, 
unless  it  erect  itself  into  .  a  Star  Chamber,  or  a  Court  of  High  Com- 
mission, with  an  execrable  Laud  at  its  head  to  determine  what  is  and 
what  is  not  true  religion  and  safe  opinion.  It  is  well  said  by  one  of 
the  most  accurate  observers  of  human  affairs,  that  "  every  power  which 
calls  in  the  aid  of  an  ally  stronger  than  itself  perishes  by  the  assistance 
it  receives."  If  the  State  calls  in  religion  as  an  ally  stronger  than  her- 
self, the  church  will  swallow  up  the  State.  If  the  church  calls  in  the 
State  as  an  ally  stronger  than  herself,  she  will  be  swallowed  up  by  the 
State.  At  this  time  both  are  happily,  to  a  great  extent,  independent, 
and  in  most  respects  unallied.  A  powerful  State  never  grants  privi- 
leges to  the  church  without  requiring,  sooner  or  later,  heavy  payment. 
A  State,  nursing  a  church,  has  always  been  like  a  she-bear  hugging  a 
lamb.  On  this  general  subject  I  find  in  Tucker's  Blackstone,  vol.  1st, 
part  2d,  p.  4  in  the  note,  some  sentiments  expressed  so  forcibly  that  I 
beg  leave  to  quote  them.  It  does  not  diminish  in  my  mind  their  force 
that  they  are  derived  from  Paine,  whose  opinions  on  the  subject  of  re- 
ligion were  infleed  exceedingly  corrupt,  but  whose  services  in  prepar- 


11 

ing  the  public  mind  for  the  Independence  of  1776,  no  well-informed 
man  can  doubt.  I  give  tlie  quotation,  however,  not  as  upon  the  author- 
ity of  a  name,  but  as  containing  truths  so  nearly  self-evident  to  a  Vir- 
ginian, that  I  venture  to  predict  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  will  not 
attempt  to  disprove  the  truth  of  one  of  them,  although  they  may  sneer 
at  my  quoting  Tom  Paine.  My  motto  is  :  "  Que  m'importe  d'ou  il 
soit  pourvu  qu'  il  se  trouve  utile."  "  If  the  things  themselves  are 
good,  it  signifies  very  little  whose  they  are."     Here  is  the  quotation: 

"Toleration  is  not  the  opposite  of  intolerance,  but  is  the  counterfeit 
of  it.  Both  are  despotisms.  The  one  assumes  to  itself  the  right  of 
withholding  liberty  of  conscience,  and  the  other  of  granting  it.  The 
one  is  the  pope  armed  with  fire  and  faggot,  and  the  other  is  the  pope 
selling  or  granting  indulgences.  The  former  is  church  and  state,  and 
the  latter  is  church  and  tratBc. 

But  toleration  may  be  viewed  in  a  much  stronger  light.  Man  wor- 
ships not  himself,  but  his  Maker  ;  and  the  liberty  of  conscience  which 
he  claims  is  not  for  the  service  of  himself,  but  of  his  God.  In  this 
case,  therefore,  we  must  necessarily  have  the  associated  idea  of  two 
beings ;  the  mortal,  who  renders  the  worship,  and  the  immortal  Being 
Avho  is  worshipped.  Toleration,  therefore,  places  itself  not  between 
ma^n  and  man,  nor  between  church  and  church,  nor  between  one  de- 
nomination of  religion  and  another,  but  between  God  and  man;  be- 
tween the  being  who  worships  and  the  being  who  is. worshipped;  and 
by  the  same  act  of  assumed  authority  by  which  it  tolerates  man  to  pay 
his  worship,  it  presumptuously  and  blasphemously  sets  itself  up  to 
tolerate  the  Almighty  to  receive  it. 

Were  a  bill  brought  into  any  parliament  entitled :  "  An  act  to  toler- 
ate or  grant  liberty  to  the  Almiglity  to  receive  the  worship  of  a  Jew 
or  a  Turk,"  or  "to  prohibit  the  Almighty  from  receiving  it" — all  men 
would  startle  and  call  it  blasphemy.  There  would  be  an  uproar.  The 
presumption  of  toleration  in  religious  matters  would  then  present  itself 
unmasked :  but  tlie  presumption  is  not  the  less  because  the  name  of 
"Man"  only  appears  to  those  laws,  for  the  associated  idea  of  the  wor- 
shipper and  worshipped  cannot  be  separated." 

IS    THIS    A    CHRISTIAN    COMMONWEALTH  ? 

It  has  become  customary  in  many  quarters  to  speak  and  write  of  the 
governments  of  this  country  almost  as  if  we  had  an  established  reli- 
gion. In  the  petition  before  you  I  find  the  the  expressions,  a  "  Chris- 
tian Commonwealth"  and  a  "  Chi'istian  State."  If  by  these  terms  be 
meant,  that  the  great  majority  of  our  people,  who  profess  any  religion, 
profess  the  christian  religion,  and  that  a  great  majority  of  the  nation  are 


12 

prejudiced  in  favor  of  the  christian  religion,  then  I  do  not  object  to  such 
language.  But  if  it  be  intended  to  create  a  belief  that  christians  are 
or  ought  to  be  by  our  laws  entitled  to  any  civil,  political  or  religious  pri- 
vileges except  in  common  with  Jews,  Deists  and  Atheists,  if  there  be 
any  amongst  us,  then  I  utterly  reject  it.  To  me  it  is  a  source  of  un- 
speakable pleasure,  that  I  live  in  a  land,  where  I  believe  the  rights  of 
conscience  are  most  solemnly  guaranteed  to  every  human  being,  howe- 
ver ill  informed  or  perverted  his  conscience  may  be  on  spiritual  affairs. 
In  this  equal  unqualified  hberty  I  rejoice,  and  I  will  rejoice.  It  was 
bought  with  the  blood  of  our  venerated  fathers,  nor  was  the  price  paid 
for  it  too  high. 

HISTORY    OF    VIRGINIA. 

I  would  also  observe  that  this  proposition  comes  up  at  a  remarkable 
time  and  under  remarkable  circumstances.  When  we  look  to  Europe 
we  can  hardly  see  a  State,  which  is  not  involved  in  serious  difficulties 
on  account  of  religion.  Indeed  the  governments  of  most  parts  of  the 
world  have  not  yet  snorted  away  the  fumes  of  the  indigested  blood  of 
myriads  of  victims,  who  have  fallen  under  the  evil  power  of  the  State 
to  interfere  in  some  way  with  religion.  Even  in  our  land  I  am  not 
sure  but  there  are  still  living  men,  who  have  suffered  the  rigors  of  im- 
prisonment, or  other  mortifying  disabilities  on  account  of  their  religious 
opinions.  I  myself  have  seen  a  venerable  minister  of  the  Baptist 
church,  who  together  with  two  of  his  brethren  Avas  imprisoned  in  the 
jail  of  Chesterfield,  (not  twenty  miles  from  this  spot,)  and  solely  upon 
the  ground  that  he  had  dared  with  freedom  to  tell  the  people  that  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin.  As  to  the  multitude  of 
minor  mortifying  disabilities,  under  which  men  are  frequently  made  to 
labor.  I  declare  most  solemnly,  in  the  language  of  another,  that,  "I 
would  sooner  bring  myself  to  put  a  man  to  immediate  death,  and  so  get 
rid  of  the  man  and  his  opinions  at  once,  than  to  fret  him  with  a  fever- 
ish being,  tainted  with  the  jail  distemper  of  a  contagious  servitude,  to 
keep  him  above  gi'ound  an  animated  mass  of  putrefaction,  corrupted 
himself,  and  corrupting  all  about  him."  Or  if  his  spirit  be  too  stout, 
and  his  virtue  made  of  stuff  too  stern  to  succumb  to  the  natural  influ- 
ence of  these  degrading  disabilities,  then  I  solemnly  declare  I  would 
sooner  see  him  put  to  death  in  a  solemn  and  decent  manner,  than  to 
behold  him  from  day  to  day  harrassed,  vexed,  and  tormented  by  the 
countless  irritations  of  evil  men,  having  power  to  fret  him,  but  not 
magnanimity  to  let  him  alone.  I  say  thus  because  I  had  rather  die 
myself  than  live,  for  ever  tormented  by  the  myriads  of  flies,  wasps  and 
hornets,  generated  by  any  system  of  legislation,  partial  to  the  conscien- 


13 

cies  of  any  particular  class.  The  first  article  in  my  creed  is  :  T.'iere 
is  a  God.  The  second  is  like  unto  it:  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  con- 
science. I  v/ould  as  soon  thinlc  of  blotting  out  the  first  as  the  second 
from  the  symbol  of  ray  faith. 

That  I  have  not  exaggerated  the  state  of  things,  existing  in  this  Com- 
monwealth previous  to  the  events  of  1776  is  manifest  to  the  memory 
of  our  old  people,  and  is  abundantly  declared  by  record  evidence  as  I 
shall  show.  Such  a  state  of  things  has  not  escaped  the  notice  of  our 
most  eminent  jurists, 

JUDGE    ROANE. 

I  could  mention  no  name  among  the  long  list  of  able  judges,  who 
have  presided  in  our  halls  of  justice,  which  would  carry  with  it  more 
weight  than  the  name  of  Spencer  Roane,  of  whom  it  is  hard  to  say, 
whether  his  fame  should  rest  most  upon  the  natural  strength  and  inde- 
pendence of  his  mind,  the  extent  of  his  legal  knowledge,  his  sterling  in- 
tegrity, or  his  fervent  love  of  unqualified  liberty.  This  eminent  public 
servant  as  reported  in  6th  Call  pp.  168,  169,  (Turpin  et  al.  v.  Locket  et 
al.)  Speaking  of  the  Revolution,  says  "  that  memorable  event  has  tum- 
bled to  the  ground  the  then  national  church  together  with  its  col- 
league the  government:  It  has  not  tumbled  to  the  ground,  and  I  trust 
never  will,  the  pure  and  excellent  system  of  that  church,  considered  as 
a  society  of  christians  ;  but  that  towering  and  powerful  hierarchy,, 
whose  progress  was  not  to  be  arrested,  by  even  the  mild  and  tolerant 
principles  of  the  Episcopal  persuasion  :  that  overwhelming  hierarchy, 
which  levelled  to  the  dust  everj'vestige  of  religious  liberty  !" 

"  Let  me  not  be  supposed,  sir,  to  denounce  this  hierarchy  with  too 
much  severity.  Is  it  not  known  to  every  sciolist  in  our  laws,  that  it 
procured  the  enaction  of  a  statute  for  silencitig,  and  even  banishing 
non-conforming  ministers  ?  Is  it  not  known  to  every  member  of  this 
court,  that  even  in  tlie  dawn  of  our  struggle  against  Britain,  for  civil 
liberty,  many  meek  and  pious  teachers  of  the  gospel  were  imprisoned, 
persecuted,  and  treated  as  criminals  ?" 

"  The  only  crime  of  these  men  was  their  worshipping  God  according 
to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences  !  There  is  not  a  gentleman 
old  enough  to  know  the  fact,  who  has  not  seen  ministers  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  teaching  their  doctrines  through  the  grated  windows  of  a 
prison."  He  adds  that  there  was  then  an  "  utter  annihilation  of  every 
semblance  of  religious  liberty." 

GLEBE    LANDS. 

The  case,  in  which  the  above  sentiments  are  expressed,  is  the  cele- 
brated Glebe  case — a  case,  which  ought  never  to  be  forgotten  by  the 


14 

people  of  this  Commonwealth — a  case,  in  which  an  attempt  was  made 
to  settle  upon  a  particular  denomination  a  large  amount  of  landed  pro- 
perty, which  had  been  paid  for  out  of  the  comoion  fund  created  by 
the  whole  people  of  the  State.  Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten,  that  the  at- 
tempt would  have  succeeded,  had  it  not  been  for  the  sudden  and  lamen- 
ted death  of  one  of  the  judges  on  the  night  before  this  decision  was  to 
have  been  made.  The  case  came  by  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
consisting  of  five  judges.  Three  of  them  were  -for  sustaining  the  ap- 
peal, but  the  death  of  one  of  the  three  prevented  him  from  giving  his 
opinion.  The  Court  was  therefore  equally  divided ;  and  the  ap- 
peal consequently  failing,  the  judgment  of  the  lower  court  obtained. — 
Thus  by  an  event  unlocked  for,  and  much  lamented  by  good  men,  were  . 
the  people  of  this  State  saved  from  the  iniquitous  and  odious  imposi- 
tion threatened  by  the  claims  set  up  for  the  Glebes. 

Our  escape  was  if  possiI)le  even  narrower  than  this.  When  a  Glebe 
case  from  that  part  of  Virginia,  which,  had  been  ceded  to  the  Federal 
Government,  as  a  part  of  the  District  of  Columbia  came  before  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  it  was  decided  to  the  amazement 
of  thousands  that  the  Episcopal  church  was  entitled  to  the  Glebe. — 
See  the  case  of  Terrett  and  others  vs.  Taylor  and  others,  9.  Cranch, 
pp.  43 — 55.  In  this  case  Chancellor  Tucker  says  the  Court  gave  an 
extra-judicial  opinion  respecting  Glebes  in  Virginia. 

I  ask  the  committee,  to  allow  me  to  read  a  few  short,  but  impres- 
sive lessons  from  our  past  history.  Dr.  Baird  in  his  m  ork  entitled 
"  Religion  in  America,"  pp.  88,  89  speaks  particularly  of  Virginia : 

"  During  the  governorship  of  Sir  Thomas  Dale,  the  London  Com- 
pany sent  over  to  Virginia  a  set  of  "laws,  divine,  moral,  and  martial," 
being,  apparently,  the  first  fruits  of  Sir  Thomes  Smith's  legislation  ; 
and  from  their  Draconian  character,  they  give  us  some  idea  of  the  no- 
tions entertained  in  those  times  of  the  ways  whereby  religion  might  be 
promoted  by  the  civil  power.  They  were  so  bad,  it  is  true,  as  to  be 
little,  if  at  all  enfprced.  In  short,  they  soon  fell  into  complete  desue- 
tude, and  were  disclaimed,  at  length,  by  the  company,  without  whose 
sanction  they  seem  to  have  been  prepared  and  sent.  Yet  there  is  am- 
ple evidence  to  prove  that  they  breathed  very  much  the  spirit  of  the 
times  that  produced  them,  and  of  the  party  in  the  church  of  England 
to  whicli  their  autlior  belonged — a  spirit,  which,  thank  God  !  has  long 
since  ceased  to  exist  in  that  or  any  other  portion  of  the  church  of 
Christ  in  that  country. 

The  first  of  those  laws  that  bears  upon  religion  enjoins  on  the  officers 
of  the  colony,  of  every  description,  to  have  a  care  that  '•  the  Almightie 


15 

God  bee  duly  and  daily  served,"  that  the  people  "  heare  sermons,  that 
they  themselves  set  a  good  example  therein,  and  that  they  punish  such 
as  shall  be  often  and  M'illully  absent,  "  according  to  martial  law  in  llie 
case  provided." 

The  second  law  forbids,  upon  pain  of  death,  speaking  against  the 
sacred  Trinity,  or  any  person  of  tlie  same,  or  against  the  known  arti- 
cles of  the  christian  faith. 

The  third  law  forbids  blasphemy  of  God's  holy  name  upon  pain  of 
death  ;  and  the  use  of  all  unlawful  oaths,  upon  severe  punishment  for 
the  first  ofTemce,  the  boring  of  the  tongue  with  a  bodkin  for  the  second 
and  death  for  the  third. 

The  fourth  law  forbids  speaking  disrespectfully  of  the  word  of  God, 
upon  pain  of  death,  as  well  as  the  treating  of  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel with  disrespect ;  and  enjoins  the  "  holding  of  them  in  all  reverent 
regard  and  dutiful  entreatie,"  under  penalty  of  being  whipped  three 
times,  and  of  asking  forgiveness  in  the  assembly  of  the  congregation 
three  severall  Saboth  dales." 

The  fifth  law  enjoins  upon  all  to  attend  morning  and  evening,  every 
week-day,  in  the  church  for  service,  at  the  tolling  of  the  bell,  upon 
pain  of  losing  their  daily  allowance  for  the  first  omission,  to  be  whip- 
ped for  the  second,  sent  to  the  galleys  for  six  months  for  the  third.  It 
also  forbids  all  violation  of  the  Sabbath  by  gaming,  and  commands  the 
people  to  prepare  themselves  by  private  prayer  for  the  proper  attend- 
ance upon  the  public  worship,  forenoon  and  afternoon,  upon  pain  of 
losing  their  week's  allowance  for  the  first  omission,  the  same  and  a 
whipping  for  the  second,  and   death  for  the  third. 

The  sixth  enjoins  upon  every  minister  within  the  colony  to  preach 
every  Sabbath  morning,  and  catechise  in  the  afternoon;  to  have  a  ser- 
vice morning  and  evening  every  day,  and  preach  on  Wednesday  ;  "to 
chuse  unto  him  some  of  the  most  religions  and  better  dispos- 
ed" to  maintain  a  sort  of  spiritual  police,  and  to  see  that  the  church 
be  kept  in  a  good  and  decent  state,  and  that  he  keep  a  register  of  births, 
deaths,  baptisms,  &c.,  "  upon  the  burthen  of  a  neglectfuU  conscience, 
and  upon  paine  of  losing  their  entertainement." 

The  seventh  law  commands  "  all  who  were  then  in  the  colony,  or 
who  shall  thenceforth  arrive,  to  repair  to  the  minister,  that  he  may 
know,  by  conference  had,  their  religious  knowledge  ;  and  if  any  be  de- 
ficient, they  are  enjoined  to  go  to  him,  at  times  which  he  shall  appoint, 
to  receive  farther  instruction,  which,  if  they  refuse  to  do,  the  governor, 
upon  representation  of  the  fact,  shall  order  the  delinquent' to  be  whip- 
ped once  for  the  first  omission,  twice  for  the  second,  and  every  day  till 


16 

acknowledgment  be  made  and  forgiveness  asked  for  the  third  ,  and  also 

commands  every  man  to  answer,  when  catechised  respecting  his  faith 

and  knowledge  upon  the  Sabbath,  upon  pain  of  the  same  peril." 

Previously  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Company,  in  1624,  the  Colonial 

Legislature  passed  a  number  of  laws  relating  to  the  church ;  three  of 

the  most  important  were  as  follows  : 

1.  That  in  every  plantation  where  the  people  were  wont  to  meet  for 

the  worship  of  God,  there  should  be  a  house  or  room  set  apart  for  that 

purpose,  and  not  converted  to  any  temporal  use  whatsoever. 

3.  That  whosoever  should  absent  himself  from  divine  service  any 

Sunday,  without  an  allowable  excuse,  should  forfeit  a  pound  of  tobacco ; 

and  that  he  who  absented  himself  a  month,  should  forfeit  fifty  pounds 

of  tobacco. 

3.  That  there  should  be  a  uniformity  in  the  church  as  near  as  might 
be,  both  in  substance  and  circumstance,  to  the  canons  of  the  Church  of 
England ;  and  that  all  persons  should  yield  a  ready  obedience  to  them 
upon  pain  of  censure." 

"One  of  the  greatest  evils  of  the  Establishment  we  are  speaking  of, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  shameful  acts  of  intolerance  and  oppression  to 
which  it  led.  Although  the  Quakers  were  in  no  instance  put  to  death 
in  Viro-inia,  yet  they  were  subjected  to  much  persecution  and  annoy- 
ance, and  were  glad  in  many  cases  to  escape  into  North  Carolina. 
The  Puritans,  too,  were  much  disliked,  and  severe  laws  were  passed 
"  to  prevent  the  infection  from  reaching  the  country."  Archbishop 
Laud's  authority  stood  as  high  in  Virginia  as  in  England.  An  offender 
against  that  authority,  of  the  name  of  Reck,  was,  in  1642,  pilloried 
for  two  hours,  with  a  label  on  his  back'  setting  forth  his  offence,  then 
fined  £50,  and  imprisoned  during  the  pleasure  of  the  governor."  p.  98, 

A    CASE. 

I  find  in  Jefferson's  Reports,  pp.  96  and  97,  in  the  case  of  "  Good- 
win et  al.  vs.  Lunan" — confirmation  of  all  this,  with  further  light 
on  the  state  of  things  in  Virginia.  "The  plaintiffs  were  church- 
wardens and  vestrymen  of  the  upper  parish,  county  of  Nanseraond,  and 
filed  libel  in  General  Court  as  a  Court  of  Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
•ao-ainst  the  defendant  charging  that  he  was  minister  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  regularly  ordained,  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; that  he  was  received  to  the  (cure?)  care  of  the  said  parish ;  that 
he  was  of  evil  fame  and  profligate  manners ;  that  he  was  much  addict- 
ed to  drunkenness,  in  so  much  as  to  be  often  drunk  at  church  and  una- 
ble to  go  through  divine  service,  or  to  baptise  or  marry  those  who  at- 
tended for  those  purposes  :  that  he  officiated  in  ridiculous  apparel  un- 


becoming  a  priest;  that  he  was  a  common  disturber  of  the  peace,  and 
often  quarrelling  and  fighting ;  that  he  was  a  common  and  profane 
swearer;*  *  *  *  that  he  neglected  the  parochial  duties  of  performing  di- 
vine service,  preaching  and  administering  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper ;  that  he  had  declared  he  did  not  beheve  in  the  revealed  religion 
of  Christ,  and  cared  not  of  what  religion  he  was  so  he  got  the  tobacco, 
nor  what  became  of  the  flock  so  that  he  could  get  the  fleece. 

Wherefore  the  libellants  prayed  that  the  said  Patrick  Lunan  might 
be  corrected,  punished  and  deprived,  or  otherwise  that  right  and  jus- 
tice might  be  administered.  The  defendant  pleaded  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  court,  and  on  that  plea  it  was  argued  in  October,  1771." 

After  argument,  the  court  adjudged  that  they  possessed  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  in  general.     But  a  re-hearing  was  granted. 

The  parts  of  this  report  omitted  and  marked  *  *  *  *  I  assure  the 
Committee  are  not  palliative.  They  are  too  bad  to  be  read  or  even 
thought  of. 

Bishop  Meade  in  his  address  to  the  Convention  of  his  Diocese  in 
May  last  testifies  to  the  same  point.  Speaking  of  the  Episcopal  church 
in  Virginia  previous  to  the  Revolution  of  1776,  he  says,  "  that  its  spir- 
itual condition  was  ever  even  tolerablygood  *  *  *  faithful  history  for- 
bids us  to  believe."  He  also  says:  "That  the  minister&  then  in  the 
colony  were  men  of  zeal  can  scarce  be  supposed,  as  a  law  was  re- 
quired enjoining  it  upon  them  to  preach  constandy  every  Sabbath  and 
administer  the  sacrament  at  least  twice  every  year,"  Again  :  "  As  to 
the  unworthy  and  hireling  clergy, of  the  Colony  there  was  no  ecclesi- 
astical discipline  to  correct  or  punish  their  irregularities  and  vices." 
Again:  "That  there  was  at  this  time"  (the  days  of  Whitefield  and 
Davies)  "  hot  only  defective  preaching,  but,  as  might  be  expected,  most 
evil  living  among  the  clergy  is  evident  from  a  petition  of  tlie  clergy 
themselves  to  the  Legislature,"  &c.  He  then  speaks  of  the  "  Episco- 
pal clergy  losing  more  and  more  the  favor  of  God  and  man."  He  says  : 
"  Had  they  been  faithful  shepherds  they  would  not  have  deserted  their 
flocks,"  as  by  his  statement,  63  out  of  91  did  after  the  contest  witJi 
England  began.  Again,  speaking  of  the  days  of  Bishop  Madison  and 
"for  a  long  time  before,"  he  says:  "  It  is  a  melancholy  fact  that  many 
of  them,  [the  clergy]  had  been  addicted  to  the  race-field,  the  card-table, 
the  ball-room,  the  theatre — nay,  more,  to  the  drunken  revel.  One  of 
them,  about  the  very  period  of  which  I  am  speaking,  was,  and  had 
be6n  for  years,  the  President  of  a  Jockey  Club.  Another,  after  aban- 
doning the  ministry,  fought  a  duel  in  sight  of  the  very  church  in  which 
the  had  performed  the  solemn  offices  of  religion.  Nothing  was  more 
2 


18 

common  even  among  the  better  portion  of  them,  than  to  celebrate  the 
holy  ordinance  of  Baptism,  not  amidst  the  prayers  of  the  congregation^ 
but  the  festivities  of  the  feast  and  the  dance,  the  minister  sometimes 
taking  a  full  share  in  all  that  was  going  on."  He  speaks  of  many  of 
the  English  clergy  as  having  preached  "  a  mere  morality  and  not  the 
glorious  doctrines  of  grace."  Again,  speaking  of  non-Episcopalians 
in  Virginia,  he  says  :  "  Had  not  our  fathers  done  religion  and  them 
some  wrong?  Were  they  not  most  sincere  in  their  fear  of  us  ?" 
Speaking  of  the  Kevolution  of  ITTe,  and  the  downfall  of  the  hierar- 
chy, he  says :  "  Many  circumstances  contributed  to  this  event.  The 
severities  exercised  towards  some  of  the  Dissenters  in  times  past  had 
embittered  their  minds  against  the  declining  establishment." — Journal 
of  the  Convention,  1845,  pp.  13,  14,  15,  17,  18,  19. 

Sir,  men  are  still  living  who  saw  and  felt,  and  wept  over,  and  fought 
against  this  state  of  things.  Is  this  a  time  for  the  Legislature  of  Vir- 
ginia to  commence  a  virtual  establishment  of  religion  in  all  its  forms 
hy  Jilling  the  Commonwealth  with  religious  corporations? 

This  movement  is  also  remarkable  if  we  consider  the  state  of  our 
laws. 

On  the  24th  January,  1799,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  passed  "an 
Act  to  repeal  certain  Acts,  and  to  declare  the  construction  of  the  Bill 
of  Rights  and  Constitution  concerning  Religion." 

1.  Whereas  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  hath  pro- 
nounced the  government  of  the  King  of  England,  to  have  been  totally 
dissolved  by  the  revolution;  hath  substituted  in  place  of  the  Civil  Gov- 
ernment so  dissolved,  a  new  Civil  Government ;  and  hath  in  the  Bill 
of  Rights,  excepted  from  the  powers  given  to  the  substituted  Govern- 
ment, the  power  of  reviving  any  species  of  ecclesiastical  or  church- 
government,  in  lien  of  tliat  so  dissolved,  by  referring-  the  subject  of  re- 
ligion to  conscience  :  And  whereas,  the  several  acts  presehtly  recited, 
do  admit  the  church  established  under  the  regal  government,  to  have 
continued  so,  subsequently  to  the  Constitution ;  have  bestowed  pro- 
perty upon  that  church ,'  have  asserted  a  legislative  right  to  establish 
any  religious  sect ;  and  have  incorporated  religious  sects,  all  of  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  of  religious 
freedom,  and  manifestly  tends  to  the  re-establishment  of  a  naiional 
church  :  For  prevention  whereof, 

2.  Be  it  enacted,  That  the  several  laws,  the  titles  whereof  are  as 
follows :  "  An  Act  for  exempting  the  different  societies  of  dissenters 
from  contributing  to  the  support  and  maintenance  of  the  church  as 
by  law  established,  and  its  ministers,  and  for  other  purposes  therein 


19 

mentioned^' — "  An  Act,  to  repeal  so  much  of  the  act,  for  the  support 
of  the  clergy,  and  for  the  regular  collecting  and  paying  the  parish  levies, 
as  relates  to  the  payment  of  the  salaries  heretofore  given  to  the  clergy 
of  the  church  of  England" — "An  Act  for  incorporating  tlie  Protestant, 
Episcopal  church" — "An  Act,  to  authorize  the' election  of  certain  ves- 
tries"— "An  Act,  to  repeal  the  act,  for  incorporating  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church,  and  for  other  purposes" — and  "An  Act  for  giving 
certain  powers  to  the  trustees  of  the  property  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church,"  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  repealed,  and  declared  to 
be  void  and  of  none  effect.  And  it  is  further  declared,  that  the  law 
entitled,  "An  Act  for  establishing  religious  freedom,"  is  a  true  exposi- 
tion of  the  principles  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  and  Constitution."-—!.  Re- 
msed  Code,  1819,  pp.  78,  79. 

In  the  Assembly  Avhieh  passed  this  Act,  besides  other  men  of  emi- 
nence, were  Richard  B.  Lee,  John  Tazewell,  George  Mason,  John 
Tyler,  Sr.,  Wm.  B.  Giles,  John  Taylor,  of  Caroline,  and  James  Mad- 
ison— nomina  clara  et  venerabilia — men  who  were  not  accustomed 
to  send  forth  solemn  declarations,  much  less  to  put  them  in  the  form 
of  laws,  without  some  degree  of  consideration.  Yet  these  eminent 
public  servants  here  put  it  on  record,  a'S  their  deliberate  judgment,  that 
"to  incorporate  religious  sects  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of 
the  Constitution,  and  of  religious  freedom,  and  manifesthj  tends  to  the 
re-establishment  of  a  national  church."  Sir,  I  will  not  enter  into  a 
detailed  argument  to  show  that  that  is  true  which  John  Taylor,  of 
Caroline  and  James  Madison,  and  the  Legislature  of  ^^irginia  declared 
to  be  '■'■  manifest  f  nor  will  I  stop  to  answer  the  objection,  that  this 
opinion  is  expressed  only  in  a  preamble,  especially  when  I  see  that 
preamble  itself  followed  by  an  actual  repeal  of  corporate  posvers  pre- 
viously granted  to  one  denomination. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  petitioners  desire  corporate  powers  not  for 
themselves  only,  but  for  all  Christian  denominations;  yea,  more,  for 
every  congregation  and  religious  society  in  the  Commonwealth.  I  be- 
lieve the  ass  is  esteemed  the  most  stupid  of  animals;  yet  I  can  hardly 
imagine  that  even  he  is  so  didl  as  not  to  prefer  being  ridden  by  one 
rather  than  by  a  dozen.  Very  far  sooner  would  I  see  the  Legislature 
of  Virginia  grant  acts  of  incorporation  to  any  sect  that  might  ask  it 
than  to  see  a  wliole  litter  of  incorporated  churches  brought  forth  at 
once.  I  cannot,  however,  indulge  a  wish  so  malignant  towards  any 
branch  of  the  church  of  God  as  to  say:  "Let  this  one  be  incorpora- 
ted." Such  a  grant  of  incorporation,  if  accepted,  would  blast  the  fair- 
est prospects  of  any  denomination  for  half  a  century. 


20 

We  have  in  2nd  Revised  Code,  pp.  77, 78,  a  statutory  provision,  penned 
by  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  regarded  ahnost 
universally  with  the  highest  veneration,  although  it  was  enacted  by  an 
ordinary  Legislature,  and  might  be  repealed  at  any  time.  I  will  not 
quote  it.  I  will  merely  request  the  committee  to  consider  its  several 
clauses,  and  endeavor  to  catch  its  spirit,  and  act  accordingly.  I  am 
happy  to  state  that  its  most  important  provisions  are  now  incorporated 
into  the  existing  Constitution  of  Virginia,  and  so  form  a  part  of  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  Commonwealth,  thus,  if  I  interpret  them  aright, 
forbidding  the  Legislature  itself  to  change  the  policy  of  the  State  con- 
cerning religion. 

CONVENTION  OF   1829-30. 

There  is  also  a  portion  of  the  history  of  our  present  Constitution, 
to  which  I  ask  permission  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee.  In 
the  Convention  which  formed  that  Constitution,  as  I  learn  from  the 
published  Debates,  pp.  459-60,  General  Brodnax,  a  gentleman,  a  law- 
yer, a  statesman,  and  a  Christian,  moved  an  amendment  to  a  clause  of 
the  Constitution,  in  these  words,  viz:  "Nor  shall  be  so  construed  as 
to  deprive  the  Legislature  of  the  power  of  incorporating  by  law  the 
trustees  or  directors  of  any  Theological  Seminary,  or  other  religiou? 
society,  or  body  of  men  created  for  charitable  purposes,  or  the  advance- 
ment of  piety  and  learning,  so  as  to  protect  them  in  the  enjoyment  of 
their  property  and  immunities,  in  such  case,  and  under  such  regula- 
tions, as  the  Legislature  may  deem  expedierit  and  proper.  Biit  the 
Legislature  of  this  State,  during  all  future  time,  shall  possess  the  pow- 
er to  alter,  remodel,  or  entirely  repeal  such  charter,  or  act  of  incorpor- 
ation, whenever  they  shall  deem  it  expedient." 

Although  Gen.  B.  urged  the  adoption  of  this  clause  on  the  ground 
that  it  "went  to  modify  and  restrain,  not  to  increase  the  evil"  of  cor- 
porations, yet  after  discussion,  "it  was  promptly  negatived,  twelve  only 
rising  in  its  favor." 

I  l(3ave  to  the  Committee  to  judge  what  weight  this  scrap  of  histoiy 
ought  to  have  on  their  decision,  only  reVnarking,  that  when  on  the  au- 
thority of  Mr.  Madison  it  was  published  to  the  world  that  the  Con- 
vention which  formed  the  Federal  Constitution,  had  refused  to  grant  to 
Congress  the  power  of  incorporating  any  institution,  I  remember  it 
had  great  weight  with  many.  I  may  further  add,  that  I  believe  neither 
Ma;lison,  nor  Monroe,  nor  Marshall,  nor  Randolph,  nor  Leigh,  nor 
Johnson,  nor  Taylor,  nor  Tazewell,  were  of  the  twelve  who  voted 
for  it. 


21 

HISTORY   OF    CORPORATIONS. 

Leaving  this  view  of  affairs,  I  ask  your  attention  to  the  history  of 
the  power  of  taking  and  holding  property  granted  to  the  church  in  dif- 
ferent ages  and  countries.  Up  to  the  time  of  Constantine,  Christiani- 
ty had  stood  alone,  or  rather  she  had  waded  through  oceans  of  fire  and 
blood  to  a  moral  grandeur,  which  language  can  hardly  describe.  Even 
Dioclesiah,  who  immediately  preceded  Constantine,  was  a  bloody  per- 
secutor. But  under  Constantine  Christianity  was  established,  not  in- 
deed with  a  power  to  persecute  other  forms  of  religion,  as  is  frequent- 
ly and  erroneously  supposed,  but  Christians  were  exempted  from  per- 
secution and  made  eligible  to  office;  and  to  the  churches  was  given 
the  power  of  taking,  holding  and  transmitting  property.  This  is  the 
first  experiment  ever  made  on  the  principle  now  sought  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  Legislation  of  Virginia.  The  result  history  has  given. 
It  teaches  a  lesson  which  ought  to  make  the  world  of  mankind  wise, 
while  the  ivorld  of  nature  stands. 

Successive  generations  are  imdone  by  refusing  to  listen  to  the  voice 
of  history.  They  vainly  suppose  that  human  nature  has  fundamen- 
tally changed.  They  forget  that  although  the  human  mind  may  march, 
the  human  heart,  unregenerate,  remains  a  cold,  selfish,  covetous,  cruel 
thing  from  age  to  age. 

"Power,"  says  Dr.  Hawkes,  an  Episcopahan,  "always  passes  slowly 
and  silently,  and  without  much  notice,  from  the  hands  of  the  many  to 
the  few ;  and  all  histoay  shows  that  ecclesiastical  domination  grows  up 
by  litde  and  little.  The  overwhelming  tyranny  from  which  the  Re- 
formation freed  the  Protestant  church,  grew  up  by  this  paulatim  pro- 
cess."— Quoted  in  Coleman's  Primitive  Church,  p.  261. 

Aye,  this  ''Paulatim''  process  it  is  which  does  the  mischief.  Little 
by  litde  men  yield  and  yield,  until  at  last  nothing  is  left  them  but  an 
inglorious  servitude,  perhaps,  however,  under  the  name  of  "privilege," 
"boon,"  or  "right."  We  shall  find  in  this  discussion  some  curious 
things  called  rights. 

One  of  the  best  writers  of  the  age  has  said: 

"The  desire  for  liberty,  unfortunately,  is  but  a  step  from  the  desire 
for  power.  The  church  soon  passed  from  one  to  the  other.  When 
she  had  established  her  independence,  it  was  in  accordance  with  the 
natural  course  of  ambition  that  she  should  attempt' to  raise  her  spirit- 
ual authority  above  temporal  authority.  We  must  not,  however,  sup- 
pose that  this  claim  had  any  other  origin  than  the  weaknesses  of  human- 
ity; some   of  these  are  very  profound,  and  it  is   of  importance  that 


22 

they  should  be  known." — Guizofs  History  of  Civilization,  pp.  122, 
123. 

With  these  remarks  in  view  I  ask  your  attention  to  the  history  of 
this  power  in  the  Roman  Empire.  Speaking  of  the  church  under 
Constantine,  Coleman  says: 

"The  wealth  of  the  laity  was  now  made  to  flow  in  streams  into  the 
church.  New  expedients  were  devised  to  draw  money  from  them. 
Constantine  himself  also  contributed  large  sums  to  enrich  the  coffers 
of  the  church,  which  he  also  authorized,  A.  D.  321,  to  inherit  property 
by  will.  This  permission  opened  new  sources  of  wealth  to  the  clergy, 
while  it  presented  equal  incentives  to  their  cupidity.  With  what  ad- 
dress they  employed  their  newly-acquired  rights  is  apparent  from  the 
fact  stated  by  Planck,  "that  in  the  space  of  ten  yeajs  every  man  at 
his  decease,  left  a  legacy  to  the  church ;  and  within  fifty  years  the 
clergy,  in  the  several  provinces,  under  the  color  of  the  church,  held  in 
their  possession  one-tenth  part  of  the  entire  property  of  the  province. 
By  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  the  emperors  themselves  were  oblig- 
ed to  interpose  to  check  the  accumulation  of  these  immense  revenues : 
a  measure  which  Jerome  said  he  could  not  regret,  but  he  could  only 
regret  that  his  brethren  had  made  it  necessary.  Many  other  expe- 
dients were  attempted  to  check  this  insatiable  cupidity,  but  they  only 
aggravated  the  evil  which  they  were  intended  to  relieve." — Coleman^s 
Primitive  Church,  pp.  284,  285. 

Milner  says  : 

"  It  were  to  be  wished,  that  there  had  been  as  much  zeal  at  this  time 
to  support  the  doctrines  and  realize  the  power  of  the  cross,  as  there 
was  to  honor  its  formalities.     But  this  was  far  from  being  the  case. 

For  neither  in  Constantine,  nor  in  his  favorite  bishops,  nor  in  the 
general  appearance  of  the  church,  can  we  see  much  of  the  spirit  of  god- 
liness. Pompous  apparatus,  augmented  superstitions,  and  unmeaning 
forms  of  piety,  much  show  and  little  substance  appears.  This  is  the 
impression,  which  the  account  given  by  Eusebius  has  left  on  my  mind. 

If  we  look  at  the  external  appearance  of  Christianity,  nothing  can  be 
more  splendid.  An  emperor,  full  of  zeal  for  the  propagation  of  the 
only  divine  religion  by  edicts,  restores  every  thing  to  the  church  of 
which  it  had  been  deprived,  indemnifies  those  who  had  suffered,  hon- 
ors the  pastors  exceedingly,  recommends  the  governors  of  provinces  to 
promote  the  gospel,  and  though  he  will  neither  oblige  them  nor  any 
others  to  profess  it,  yet  he  forbids  them  to  make  use  of  the  sacrifices 
commonly,  made  by  prefects,  he  erects  churches  exceedingly  sumptu- 
ous  and  ornamental,  with  distinctions   of  the  parts  corresponding  in 


23 

some  measure  to  those  in  Solomon's  Temple,  discovers  with  much 
zeal  the  sepulchre  of  Christ  at  Jerusalem,  real  or  pretended,  and  hon- 
ors it  with  a  most  expensive  sacred  edifice.  His  mother  Helena  fills 
the  whole  Roman  world  with  her  munificent  acts  in  support  of  religion, 
and  after  the  erection  of  churches  and  travelling  from  place  to  place  to 
evidence  her  zeal  dies  before  her  son,  aged  eighty  years.  Nor  is  the 
Christian  cause  neglected  even  out  of  the  bounds  of  the  Roman  empire. 
Constantine  zealously  pleads  in  a  letter  to  Sapor,  king  of  Persia,  for 
the  Christians  of  his  dominions,  he  destroys  idol  temples,  prohibits  im- 
pious pagan  rites,  puts  an  end  to  the  savage  fights  of  gladiators,  stands 
up  with  respectful  silence  to  hear  the  sermon  of  Eusebius,  bish- 
op of  Ceesarea,  the  historian,  furnishes  him  with  the  volumes  of  the 
Scriptures  for  the  use  of  the  churches,  orders  the  observation  of  the 
festivals  of  the  martyrs,  has  prayers  and  reading  of  the  Scripture  at  his 
court,  dedicates  churches  with  great  solemnity,  makes  christian  orations 
himself,  one  of  which  of  a  considerable  length  is  preserved  by  the  his- 
torian, his  favorite  bishop,  directs  the  sacred  observation  of  the  Lord's 
day,  to  which  he  adds  that  of  Friday  also,  the  day  of  Christ's  cruci- 
fixion, and  teaches  the  soldiers  of  his  army  to  pray  by  a  short  form 
made  for  their  use,     ******* 

But  the  great  defectiveness  of  doctrine  failed  not  to  influence  the 
practice  as  usual.  External  piety  flourished,  monastic  societies  in  par- 
ticular places  were  also  growing  ;  but  faith,  love,  heavenly-mindedness, 
appeaf  very  rare  ;  yet  among  the  poor  and  obscure  Christians,  I  hope 
there  was  far  more  godliness  than  could  be  seen  at  courts,  and  among 
bishops  and  persons  of  eminence.  The  doctrine  of  real  conversion 
was  very  much  lost,  or  external  baptism  was  placed  in  its  stead ;  and 
the  true  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  and  the  true  practical  use  of 
a  crucified  Savior  for  troubled  consciences,  were  scarce  to  be  seen  at 
this  time.  There  was  much  outward  religion,  but  this  could  not  make  men 
saints  in  heart  and  life.  The  worst  part  of  the  character  of  Constan- 
tine is,  that  as  he  grew  older,  he  grew  more  culpable,  oppressive  in  his 
■own  family,  oppressive  to  the  government,  oppressive  by  eastern  su- 
perfluous magnificence,  and  the  facts  to  be  displayed  will  shew  how 
little  true  humility  and  charity  were  now  known  in  the  christian  world, 
while  superstition  and  self-righteousness  were  making  vigorous  shoots, 
and  the  real  gospel  of  Christ  was  hidden  from  men  who  professed  it." 
— Milner^s  Church  History,  Vol.  11.  pp.  50 — 59. 

"  And  at  length  a  bold  and  open  assault  was  n^iade  against  the  Deity 
of  the  Son  of  God,  and  persecution  was  stirred  up  against  Christians, 
by  those  who  wore  the  christian  name.     The  people  of  God  were  ex- 


24 

ercised,  refined,  and  improved,  while  the  christian  world  at  large  was 
torn  'in  pieces  with  violence,  intrigue,  and  scandalous  animosities,  to 
the  grief  of  all  who  loved  the  Son  of  God,  and  walked  in  his  ways  in 
godly  simplicity." — lb.  p.  61. 

This  testimony  comes  from  an  eminent  writer  and  minister  of  the 
church  of  England,  and  is  the  more  entitled  to  weight,  because  the  au- 
thor has  turned  aside  from  the  proper  work  of  a  historian  at  this  pe- 
riod of  history  to  give  us  a  formal  and  labored  argument  in  favor  of 
Church  Establishments.  As  an  offset  to  Milner's  defence  of  church 
establishments,  I  would  recommend  an  examination'of  Dr.  Short's  His- 
tory of  the  Church  of  England,  especially  Chapter  XVIII. 

^losheim,  the  "  Illustrious,"  as  he  has  often  been  called,  speaking  of 
the  same  period,  says  : 

"  No  sooner  had  Constantine,  the  Great,  abolished  the  superstitions 
of  his  ancestors,  than  magnificent  churches  were  erected  for  the  Chris- 
tians, which  were  richly  adorned  with  pictures  and  images,  and  bore  a 
striking  resemblance  of  the  pagan  temples,  both  in  their  outward  and 
inward  form.  Of  these  churches  sdme  were  built  over  the  tombs  of 
martyrs,  and  were  frequented  only  at  stated  times,  while  others  were 
set  apart  for  the  ordinary  assemblies  of  Christians  in  divine  worship. 
The  former  were  called  martyria,  from  the  places  where  they  were 
erected  ;  and  the  latter,  tituli.  Both  of  them  were  consecrated  with 
great  pomp,  and  with  certain  rites,  borrowed  mostly  from  the  ancient 
laws  of  the  Roman  pontifls. 

"But  our  wonder  will  not  cease  here,:  it  will  rather  be  augmented 
when  we  learn,  that  at  this  time  it  was  looked  upon  as  an  essential 
part  of  religion  to  have  in  every  country  a  multitude  of  churches  ;  and 
here  we  must  look  for  the  true  origin  of  what  is  called  the  right  of  pa- 
tronage., which  was  introduced  amongrChristians  with  no  other  view 
than  to  encourage  the  opulent  to  erect  a  great  number  of  churches,  by 
giving  them  the  privileffe  of  appointing  the  ministers  that  were  to  offici- 
ate in  them.  This  was  a  new  instance  of  that  servile  imitation  of  the 
ancient  superstitions  which  reigned  at  this  time ;  for  it  was  a  very 
common  notion  among  the  people  of  old,  that  nations  and  provinces 
were  happy  and  free  from  danger,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  fanes 
and  temples  which  they  consecrated  to  the  worship  of  gods  and  he- 
roes, whose  protection  and  succor  could  not  fail,  as  it  was  thought,  to 
be  shed  abundantly  upon  those  who  worshipped  them  with  such  zeal 
and  honored  them  with  so  many  marks  of  veneration  and  respect.  The 
Christians  unhappily  contracted  the  same  erroneous  way  of  thinking. 
The  greater  the  number  of  temples  was  which  they  erected  in  honor 


25 

of  Christ,  and  his  chosen  friends  and  followers,  the  more  sanguine  did 
their  expectations  grow  of  powerful  succors  from  them,  and  of  a  pecu- 
liar interest  in  the  divine  protection.  They  were  so  weak  as  to  imag- 
ine that  God,  Christ,  and  celestial  intelligences  were  delighted  with 
those  marks  arid  testimonies  of  respect,  which  captivate  the  hearts  of 
wretched  mortals." — Mosheim,  Vol.  I.  pp.  302,  303. 

The  etfects  of  this  system  were  in  two  centuries  prodigious.  For 
proof,  see  history.  Guizot  gives  us  the  following  specimens  of  the 
state  of  things  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  : 

"Cod.  Just.,  L.  I.,  tit.  IV.,  De  Episcopali  audientia  §  26.  With 
regard  to  the  yearly  affairs  of  the  cities,  (whether  as  respects  the  ordi- 
nary city  revenues,  the  funds  arising  from  the  city  estates,  from  lega- 
cies or  particular  gifts,  or  from  any  other  source  ;  whether  as  respects 
the  management  of  the  public  works,  of  the  magazines  of  provisions, 
of  the  aqueducts,  of  the  maintenance  of  the  public  baths,  the  city  gates, 
of  the  building  of  walls  or  towers,  the  repairing  of  bridges  and  roads, 
or  of  any  landsuit  in  which  the  city  may  be  engaged  on  account  of  pub- 
lic or  private  interests,)  we  ordain  as  follows  :  The  right  reverend  bish- 
op, and  three  men  of  good  report,  from  among  the  chiefs  of  the  city, 
shall  assemble  together  every  year ;  they  shall  examine  the  works 
done  ;  they  shall  take  care  that  those  who  conduct,  or  have  conducted 
them,  measure  them  correctly,  give  a  true  account  of  them,  and  cause 
it  to  be  seen  that  they  have  fulfilled  their  contracts,  whether  in  the  care 
of  the  public  monuments,  in  the  moneys  expended  in  provisions  and 
the  public  baths,  of  all  that  is  expended  for  the  repairs  of  the  roads, 
aqueducts,  and  all  other  matters. 

Ibid.,  §  30.  With  respect  to  the  guardianship  of  youth,  of  the  first 
and  second  age,  and  of  all  those  to  whom  the  law  gives  curators,  it 
their  fortune  is  not  more  than  5,000  aurei,  we  ordain  that  the  nomina- 
tion of  the  president  of  the  province  should  not  be  waited  for,  on  ac- 
count of  the  great  expense  it  would  occasion,  especially  if  the  presi- 
dent should  not  reside  in  the  city,  in  which  it  becomes  necessary  to 
provide  for  the  guardianship.  The  nomination  of  the  curators  or  tu- 
tors shall,  in  this  case,  be  made  by  the  magistrate  of  the  city  *  *  * 
in  concert  with  the  right  reverend  bishop  and  other  persons  invested 
with  public  authority,  if  more  than  one  should  reside  in  the  city. 

Ibid.,  L.  I.,  tit.  v.,  De  Defensoribus,  §  8.  We  desire  the  defenders 
of  cities,  well  instructed  in  the  holy  mysteries  of  the  orthodox  faith, 
should  be  chosen  and  instituted  into  their  office  by  the  reverend  bish- 
ops, the  clerks,  notables,  proprietors,  and  the  curiales.  With  regard 
to  their  installation,  it  must  be  committed  to  the  glorious  power  of  the 


26 

prefects  of  the  prgetorium,  in  order  that  their  authority  should  have  all 
the  stability  and  weight  which  the  letters  of  admission  granted  by  his 
magnificence  are  likely  to  give." — Guizot  on  Civilization,  p.  52. 

Turning  aside  from  this  first  disastrous  and  minatory  experiment, 
let  us  look  at  the  operation  of  religious  corporations  in  other  countries, 
and  especially  those  in  the  west  of  Europe,  to  whose  people  and  in- 
stitutions, ours  are  most  nearly  assimilated.     First  look  at 

FRANCE. 

According  to  "Le  Cabinet  du  Roi,"  in  France,  before  the  Revolu- 
tion the  property  of  the  church  consisted  of  180,000  fiefs,  of  which 
83,000  had  superior  courts,  249,000  farms,  1,700,000  acres  of ,  vine- 
yard, besides  400,000  acres,  from  which  the  ecclesiastics  received  one- 
third  or  one-fourth  of  the  wine,  600,000  acres  of  unoccupied  land, 
,245,000  water-wheels  in  flour  and  paper-mills,  iron  works,  &c., 
1,800,000  acres  of  woods,  1,400,000  acres  of  pasturage.  The  greater 
part  of  the  soil  of  the  whole  of  France  was  also  subject  to  the  title  of 
the  clergy  j  and  there  was  not  a  patch  of  ground  on  which  there  was 
not  a  mortgage,  rent  or  religious  foundation,  or  an  annual  tax  of  from 
5,  10  to  50  sols  for  a  mass,  burning  lamps,  &c.,  &c. 

Allison,  in  his  History  of  Europe,  Vol.  I.  pp.  51,  52,  in  a  note  says, 
upon  the  ^.uthority  of  Neckar:  "The  total  revenues  of  the  church  de- 
rived from  tithes  were  130,000,000  francs;  of  which  only  42,000,000 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  parochial  clergy.  The  number  of  ecclesias- 
tics was  80,000."  (Sieyes  is  his  authority.)  He  adds:  "but  this 
revenue,  large  as  it  was,  was  inconsiderable  compared  to  the  extent-of 
the  territorial  possessions  of  this  body,  which  embraced  nearly  a  half 
of  the  whole  land  of  France."  For  this  assertion  he  quotes  Rivarol, 
93,  and  De  Stael,  1.13.  He  adds:  "The  nobles  and  the  clergy  pos- 
sessed two-thirds  of  the  whole  estates  of  the  kingdom ;  and  the  other 
third  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Tiers  Etat,  upon  whom  fell  the  greater 
proportion  of  the  burdens  of  the  state ;"  and  for  this  assertion  he 
quotes  Rivarol  93,  94,  and  De  Stael  I.  44,  198.  In  the  text  of  his 
work  he  says :  "  Within  the  bosom  of  the  church  and  in  all  who  fell 
Avithin  the  sphere  of  its  influence,  the  seeds  of  deep-rooted  discontent 
were  to  be  found..  This  arose  from  the  invidious  exclusion  of  all 
persons  of  plebeian  birth  from  the  dignities  and  emoluments  of  the 
ecclesiastical  establishment.  In  extraordinary  cases,  indeed,  the  force 
of  talent  may.  have  procured  elevation,  without  the  advantages  of 
blood;  but,  generally  speaking,  the  dignitaries  of  the  church  were 
composed  of  the  same  class  as  the  marshals  or  princes  of  the  empire. 
While  the  bishops  and  elevated  clergy  were  rolling  in  wealth,  or  glit- 


27 

tering  in  the  sunshine  of  royal  favor,  the  humbler  clergy,  to  whom  the 
whole  practical  duties  of  Christianity  were  devolved,  toiled  in  virtuous 
obscurity,  hardly  elevated  either  in  rank  or  comfort  above  the  peasant- 
ry wlio  composed  their  flocks.  The  simple  piety  and  unostentatious 
usefulness  of  these  rural  priests,  while  it  endeared  them  to  their  parish- 
ioners, formed  a  striking  contrast  to  the  luxurious  habits  and  dissipated 
lives  of  the  high-born  dignitaries  of  the  church.  Their  enormous 
wealth  excited  the  envy  both  of  their  own  estabhshment  and  of  the 
lower  classes  of  the  people,  while  the  general  idleness  in  which  they 
passed  their  lives  afforded  no  possibility  of  justifying  the  scandalous 
inequality  of  their  fortunes.  Hence  the  universal  indignation  in  1789 
at  the  vices  and  corruption  of  the  church,  and  the  facility  with  which, 
in  the  very  commencement  of  the  Revolution,  their  property  was  sac- 
rificed to  relieve  the  embarrassments  of  the  finances." 

Were  it  requisite  a  world  of  proof  to  the  same  effect  might  be  pro- 
duced. But  there  is  no  gentleman  before  the  Committee,  who  will 
have  the  temerity  to  deny  the  enormous  abuses  of  church  property 
and  church  power  in  France,  nor  to  express  even  a  doubt  as  to  its  in- 
fluence in  bringing  about  that  terrific  explosion,  which  has  scattered  its 
lava  over  Europe,  and  its  ashes  over  the  world. 

CHANCELLOR  TUCKER. 

Judge  Henry  St.  George  Tucker  in  his  'Opinion,'  as  Chancellor, 
"in  the  case' of  Selden  and  others  against  the  Overseers  of  the  Poor 
of  Loudoun  and  another,"  says:  (p.  16,)  "The  vast  domains  of  the 
clergy,  acquired  in  the  lapse  of  centuries,  by  the  Catholic  establish- 
ment of  France,  are  known  to  us  all.  There  seems  to  be  little  reason 
to  doubt  that  from  this  fatal  source,  among  others,  a  revolution  sprung, 
which  deluged  the  loveliest  country  of  Europe  in  blood;  and  in  its 
horrible  progress,  spread  desolation  over  adjoining  states,  and  shook 
the  civilized  world  to  its  very  centre.  But  it  may  be  said  "  that  this 
was  anti-christ,"  and  that  it  is  not  fair  to  attribute' to  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion the  errors  which  they  had  been  forward  to  denounce  in  the  prac- 
tices of  popery.  Look  then  across  the  channel  to  Protestant  England, 
and  there  we  shall  see,  notwithstanding  every  legislative  precaution^  a 
church  establishment  possessed  of  overgrown  wealth,  less  devoted  to 
the  cause  of  genuine  religion  than  to  pamper  the  luxury  and  indolence 
of  the  high  dignitaries  of  the  church." 

ENGLAND, 

This  introduces  us  to  England,  of  whose  Constitution  I  am  free  to 
say,  that,  with   one   exception,  (our  own,)  it  is  the   best   in  the  world. 


28 

At  an  early  period,  (we  need  not  stop  to  enquire  when,)  the  power  ot 
taking,  holding,  and  transmitting  property,  was  granted  to  the  church* 
From  that  time  to  the  present,  incalculable  wrongs  to  private  individu- 
als, and  inestimable  dangers  to  the  State  have  frequently  arisen  from 
this  source.  The  statute  books  are  covered  over  with  evidence  of  this 
truth.  Thus  Blackstone  (Book  1st,  ch.  xviii.  Vol.  I.  pp.  478,  479,) 
says  :  "  We  before  observed  that  it  was  incident  to  every  corporation 
to  have  a  capacity  to  purchase  lands  for  themselves  and  successors  ; 
and  this  is  regularly  ti'ue  at  the  common  law.  But  they  are  excepted 
out  of  the  statute  of  wills,  so  that  no  devise  of  lands  to  a  corporation  by 
will  is  good ;  except  for  charitable  uses,  by  statute  43,  Eliz.  ch.  iv. 
which  exception  is  again  greatly  narrowed  by  the  statute  9  George  II, 
ch.  xxxvi.  And  also,  by  a  great  variety  of  statutes,  their  privilege  even 
of  purchasing  from  any  living '  grantor  is  much  abridged  :  so  that  now 
a  corporation,  either  ecclesiastical  or  lay,  must  have  a  license  from  the 
.king  to  purchase  before  they  can  exert  that  capacity,  which  is  vested 
in  them  by  the  common  law ;  nor  is  even  this  in  all  cases  sufficient. 
These  statutes  are  generally  called  the  statutes  of  mortmain,  all  purcha- 
ses made  by  corporate  bodies  being  said  to  be  purchases  in  mortmain, 
in  mortua  manu ;  for  the  reason  of  which  appellation  Sir  Edward 
Coke  offers  many  conjectures ;  but  there  is  one,  which  seems  more 
probable  ijian  any  that  he  has  given  us  ;  viz.  that  these  purchases  be- 
ing usually  made  by  ecclesiastical  bodies,  the  members  of  which  (being 
professed)  were  reckoned  dead  persons  in  law,  land  therefore,  holden 
by  them,  might  with  great  propriety  be  said  to  be  held  in  mortua 
manu." 

Mortmain,  according  to  Angel  &  Ames  on  Cor.  p.  90,  means  "the 
dead  clutch  of  ecclesiastical  corporations." 

So  also  in  Book  IV,  ch.  viii,.  Vol.  iv.  pp.  108,  109,  Blackstone  says  : 
"  Another  engine  set  on  foot,  or  at  least  greatly  improved,  by  the  court 
of  Rome,  was  a  masterpiece  of  papal  policy.  Not  content  with  the 
ample  provision  of  tithes,  which  the  law  of  the  land  had  given  to  the 
parochial  clergy,  they  endeavored  to  grasp  at  the  lands  and  inheritances 
of  the  kingdom,  and  (had  not  the  legislature  withstood  them)  would  by 
this  time  have  probably  been  masters  of  every  foot  of  ground  in  the 
kingdom.  To  this  end  they  introduced  the  monks  of  the  Benedictine 
.and  other  rules,  men  of  sour  and  austere  religion,  separated  from  the 
world  and  its  concerns  by  a  vow  of  perpetual  celibacy,  yet  fascinating 
the  minds  of  the  people  by  pretences  to  extraordinary  sanctity,  while 
all  their  aim  was  to  aggrandize  the  power  and  extend  the  influence  of 
their  grand  superior,  the  pope.     And  as,  in  those  times  of  civil  tumult. 


29 

great  rapines  and  violence  were  daily  committed  by  overgrown  lords 
and  their  adherents,  they  were  taught  to  believe,  that  founding  a  mon- 
astery a  little  before  their  deaths  would  atone  for  a  life  of  incontinence, 
disorder,  and  bloodshed.'  Hence  innumerable  abbeys  and.  religious 
houses  were  built  within  a  century  after  the  conquest,  and  endowed, 
not  only  with  the  tithes  of  parishes,  which  were  ravished  from  the  sec- 
ular clergy,  but  also  with  lands,  manors,  lordships,  and  extensive  baro- 
nies. And  the  doctrine  inculcated  was,  that  whatever  was  so  given  to, 
or  purchased  by,  the  monks  or  friars,  was  consecrated  to  God  himself; 
and  that  to  alienate  or  take  it  away  was  no  less  than  the  sin  of  sac- 
rilege." 

Indeed  Magna  Carta  itself  "  established  the  testamentary  power  of 
the  subject  over  part  of  his  personal  estate,  the  rest  being  distributed 
amongst  his  wife  and  children,"  thus  arresting  the  power  of  disinherit- 
ing a  man's  own  household.  See  Blackstone,  Book  IV,  ch.  xxxiii.  Vol. 
iv,  p.  424. 

We  find  Edward  the  First  (the  English  Justinian,)  attempting  to  ar- 
rest this  evil  "  by  obliging  the  ordinary,  to  whom  all  the  goods  of  in- 
testates belonged,  to  discharge  the  debts  of  the  deceased."  "He. also 
effectually  closed  the  great  gulph,  in  .which  all  the  landed  property  of 
the  kingdom  was  in  danger  of  being  swallowed  by  his  reiterated  stat- 
utes of  mortmain  ;  most  admirably  adapted  to  meet  the  frauds  that  had 
then  been  devised,  though  afterwards  contrived  to  be  evaded  by  the  in- 
vention of  uses."     See  Blackstone,  Book  IV,  ch.  xxxiii.  pp..  425,  426. 

This  brings. us  to  the  consideration  of  the  Statute  43  Elizabeth,  con- 
cerning charitable  uses,  which  statute,  like  those  of  mortmain,  was  in- 
terpreted by  the  Courts  under  the  influence  of  the  maxim,  smnma  est 
ratio  quae  pro  religione  facit,  aiid  led,  as  many  cases  show,  to  innu- 
merable abuses,  until  it  was  further  limited  by  the  statute  9  Geo.  IL 
Yet  this  celebrated  statute  (43  Eliz.)  pronounces  a  superstitious  use 
"  to  be  where  lands,  tenements,  rents,  goods,  or  chattels  are  given,  se- 
cured, or  appointed,  for  and  towards  the  maintenance  of  a  priest  or 
chaplain  to  say  mass  ;  for  the  maintenance  of  a  priest,  or  other  man, 
to  pray  for  the  soul  of  any  dead  man,  in  such  a  church  or  elsewhere  ; 
to  have  or  maintain  perpetual  obits,  lamps,  torches,  &c.  to  be  used  at 
certain  times,  to  help  to  save  the  souls  of  men  out  of  purgatory  ;  these, 
and  such  like  uses,  are  declared  to  be  superstitious,  to  which  the  king, 
by  force  of  Several  statutes,  and  as  the  head  of  the  church  and  state, 
and  entrusted  by  the  common  law,,  to  see  that  nothing  is  done  in  main- 
tenance or  propagation  of  a  false  religion,  is  entided,  so  as  to  direct 
and  appoint  all  such  uses  to  such  as  are  truly  charitable."  .  1  Bacon's 
Abridgement,  p.  581. 


30 

Can  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  put  any  such  check  as  thi;'  to  their 
own  grants  ?  Is  it  competent  to  grant  power  to  take  and  hold  funds  to 
encourage  the  saying  of  prayers  for  the  living,  and  not  for  the  dead  1 
If  so,  where  is  such  competency  declared  ?  If  you  begin  to  grant,  you 
must  grant  indiscriminately  to  Protestants,  and  Romanists. 

It  is  curious,  yea  more,  it  is  instructive,  to  note  the  decisions  under 
the  statute  of  Elizabeth.     I  Avill  cite  a  few  of  them.     Here  is  one  : 

"  ..li,  being  a  beneficed  clergyman,  devised  600£  to  Mr.  Baxter,  to 
be  distributed  by  him  among  sixty  pious  ejected  ministers,  and  added, 
that  he  did  not  give  it  to  them  for  the  sake  of  their  non-conformity,  but 
because  he  knew  many  of  them  to  be  pious  and  good  men,  and  in  great 
Want ;  he  also  gave  Mr.  Baxter  20£,  and  20£  to  be  laid  out  in  a  book  of 
his,  entitled,  Baxter's  Call  to  the  Unconverted  ;  and  this  was  holden  a  su- 
perstitious use,  which  though  void,  yet  the  charity  is  good,  and  shall 
be  applied  in  eodem  genere;  and  it  was  decreed  for  the  maintenance 
of  a  chaplain  in  Chelsea  college.    lb.  582. 

What  a  beautifully  tangled  hank  our  courts  would  have  to  unravel 
in  the  application  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  cy  pres,  were  you  to  go  into 
this  business,  as  the  petition  proposes.  To  circulate  Baxter's  Call, 
yea  to  feed  sixty  hungry  and  eminent  servants  of  God,  (the  best  men 
of  their  day,)  was  a  piece  of  superstition.  Therefore,  the  money  must 
go  towards 'supporting  a  man  of  truckling  servilitj^  a  Chelsea  chaplain. 

The  above  decision  was  made  in  the  days  of  Richard  Baxter,  by 
North,  Lord  Keeper,  and  was  not  reversed  by  the  Lords  Commission- 
ers until  1  W.  &  M.  by  which  time  I' suppose  most  of  the  sixty  pious 
ministers  had  gone  to  their  "Everlasting  Rest." 

I  will  give  another  case  : 

"  ji,  by  will,  charged  his  estate  with  an  annual  sum  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  Scotchmen  in  the  university  of  Oxon,  to  be  sent  into  Scot- 
land, to  propagate  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England  there  ;  and 
presbyteries  being  settled  in  Scotland  by  act  of  parliament,  the  ques- 
tion Was,  Whether  this  devise  should  be  Void,  and  so  fall  into  the  es- 
tate and  go  to  the  heir,  or  should  be  applied  cy  pres?  But  the  matter 
doth  not  appear  by  the  report  to  have  been  determined," — lb. 

It  seems  then  that  the  Act  of  settlement  or  something  else  has  thrown 
the  English  Courts  into  doubt  whether  poor  benighted  Scotland  is  not 
tobe  left  wholly  unillumined  by  the  great  lights  from  Oxford.  Pos- 
sibly some  decision  may  have  been  made  in  later  times,  so  that  ere 
now  the  Oxford  Doctors  (the  Tractarians)  are  able  to  shed  a  little  light 
over  their  Northern  neia-hbors. 


81 

Here  are  some  more  decisions  under  this  statute. 

"In  tlie  case  of  an  individual,  if  an  estate  be  devised  to  such  person 
as  the  executor  shall  name,  and  no  executor  is  appointed,  or  one  being 
appointed  dies  in  the  testator's  hfe  time,  and  no  one  is  appointed  in 
his  place,  the  bequest  amounts  to  nothing.  Yet  such  bequest  to  char- 
ity would  be  good,  and  the  Court  of  Chancery  would  in  such  case  as- 
sume the  office  of  executor.  So,  if  a  legacy  be  given  to  trustees  to 
distribute  in  charity,  and  they  die  in  the  testator's  life  time,  -although 
the  legacy  is  lapsed  at  law,  (and  if  they  had  taken  to  their  own  use, 
it  would  have  been  gone  forever,)  yet  it  will  be  enforced  in  equity. 
Again,  although  in  carrying  into  execution  a  bequest  to  an  individual, 
the  mode  in  which  the  legacy  is  to  take  effect,  must  be  of  the  substance 
of  the  legacy;  yet  where  the  legacy  is  to  charity,  the  Court  will  con- 
sider charity  as  the  substance ;  and  in  such  cases,  and  in  such  cases 
only,  if  the  mode  pointed  out  fail,  it  will  provide  another  mode,  by 
which  the  charity  may  take,  but  by  which  no  other  than  charitable 
legatees  can  take.  A  still  stronger  case  is,  that  if  the  testator  has  ex- 
pressed an  absolute  intention  to  give  a  legacy  to  charitable  purposes, 
but  has  left  uncertain,  or  to  some  future  act,  the  mode  by  which  it  is 
to  be  carried  into  effect,  then  the  Court  of  Chancery,  if  no  mode  is 
pointed  out,  will  of  itself  supply  the  defect,  and  enforce  the  charity. 
Therefore,  it  has  been  held,  that  if  a  man  devises  a  sum  of  money  to 
such  charitable  uses  as  he  shall  direct,  by  a  codicil  annexed  to  his 
will,  or  by  a  note  in  writing,  and  afterwards  leaves  no  direction  by 
note  or  codicil,  the  Court  of  Chancery  will  dispose  of  it  to  such  chari- 
table purposes  as  it  thinks  fit.  So,  if  a  testator  bequeath  a  sum  for 
such  a  school  as  lie  should  appoint,  and  he  appoints  none,  the  Court 
of  Chancery  may  apply  it  for  what  school  it  pleases.  The  doctrine 
has  been  pressed  yet  farther;  and  it  has  been  established,  that  if  the 
bequest  indicate  a  charitable  intention,  but  the  object  to  which  it  is  to 
be  applied,  is  against  the  policy  of  the  law,  the  Court  will  lay  hold  of 
the  charitable  intentidn,  and  execute  it  for  the  purpose  of  some  charity, 
agreeable  to  the  law,  in  the  room  of  tliat  contrary  to  it.  Thus  a  sum 
of  money  bequeathed  to  found  a  Jew's  synagogue,  lias  been  taken  by 
the  Court  and  judicially  transferred  to  the  benefit  of  a  foundling  hospi- 
tal! !  And  a  beqnest  for  the  education  of  poor  children  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  faith  has  been  decreed  in  Chancery  to  be  disposed  of  by  the 
King  at  his  pleasure,  under  his  sign  manual." — Appendix  to  4  Jfhea' 
ton's  Reports,  pp.  10,  11. 

Though  the  statute  of  Henry  VIH.  of  wills,  did  not  allow  of  de- 
vises of  land  to  corporations  to  be  good,  yet  such   devises  to   corpora- 


32 

lions  for  charitable  uses,  were  held  good,  as  appointments  under  tlie 
statute  of  Elizabeth.  Lord  Chancellor  Cowp'er,  in  a  case  where  he 
was  called  upon  to  declare  a  charitable  bequest  valid,  notwithstanding 
the  will  was  not  executed  according  to  the  statute  of  frauds,  and  these 
cases  were  cited,  observed,  "  I  shall  be  very  loth  to  break  in  upon  the 
statute  of  frauds  and  perjuries  in  this  case,  as  there  are  no  instances 
where  men  are  so  easily  imposed  upon,  as  at  the  time  of  their  dyings 
under  the  pretence  of  charity. ^^  "It  is  true,  the  charity  of  judges  has 
carried  several  cases  on  the  statute  of  Elizabeth  great  lengths ;  and 
this  occasioned  the  distinction  between  operating  by  will  and  by  ap- 
pointment, which  surely  the  makers  of  that  statute  never  contempla- 
ted."—76.  j5.  14. 

'  I  ask  the  Committee  also  to  examine  the  case  of  the  jittorney  Gen- 
eral vs.  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  given  in  17  Vesey. 

From  all  these  cases  and  views  one  thing  must  be  apparent,  that  if 
the  act  of  charitable  uses,  with  all  its  guards  against  superstition,  pro- 
duced such  monstrous  results  in  the  English  Courts,  where  the  Judi- 
ciary is  so  enlightened,  we  in  Virginia  would  be  in  a  bad  condition  for 
settling  all  the  cases  which  would  soon  arise  under  this  beautiful  doc- 
trine of  cy  pres.  A  sum  of  money  left  to  circulate  Baxter's  Call 
would,  I  suppose,  be  decreed  to  give  some  Quoit  Club  a  Saturday's 
dinner.  Never  did  the  founders  of  our  government,  and  the  framers 
of  our  laws  do  a  wiser  thing  than  to  refuse  admission  into  our  code  to 
the  statute  43  Elizabeth,  and  thus  send  the  doctrine  of  cy  pref  and  all 
its  concomitants  to  seek  an  abode  elsewhere.* 

BlSriOP  BURNET. 

I  wish  to  bring  another  witness  on  the  stand.  I  think  there  will  be 
no  exception  made  to  his  competency  or  credibility  by  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side. 

Bishop  Burnet,  (Vol.  I.  part  1,  Book  3,  p.  303,  Hist.  Eeform.,) 
speaking  of  the  efforts  to  gain  money  to  superstitious  uses,  and  espe- 
cially by  means  of  the  fiction  of  purgatory  says:  "They  persuaded 
all  people,  that  the  souls  departed  Avent  generally  thither:  feM'  were  so 
holy  as  to  go  straight  to  heaven;  and  few  so  bad  as  to  be  cast  to  hell. 
The  people  were  made  believe  that  the  saying  of  masses  for  their 
souls  gave  them  great  relief  in  torments,  and  did  at  length  deliver  them 
out  of  them.  This  being  generally  received,  it  was  thought  by  all  a 
piece  of  piety  to  their  parents,  and  of  necessary  care  for  themselves 
and  their  families,  to  give  some  part  of  their  estates  towards  the  en- 
riching of  those  houses,  for  having  a  mass  said  every  day  for  the  souls 
of  their  ancestors,  and  for  their  own,  after  their  death.     And  this  did 

*The  statute  43  Elizabeth  was  repealed  in  Virginia  in  1792. 


33 

so  spread,  that  if  some  laws  had  not  restrained  their  profuseness,  the 
greater  part  of  all  the  estates  in  England  had  been  given  to  these  houses. 
But  the  statutes  of  mortmain  were  not  very  effectual  restraints  ;  for 
what  king  soever  had  refused  to  grant  a  mortmain  was  sure  to  have  an 
uneasy  reign  ever  after."  ' 

Again,  p.  490,  he  says:  "The  abbots  had  possessed  themselves  of 
the  best  seats  and  the  greatest  wealth  of  the  nation ;  and,  by  a  profuse 
superstition,  almost  the  one-half  of  the  kingdom  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  churchmen.  The  bishops  looked  more  after  the  affairs  of  the  state, 
than  the  concerns  of  the  church  ;  and  were  resolved  to  maintain  by 
their  cruelty  what  their  predecessors  had  acquired  by  fraud  and  im- 
postures." 

And  in  Part  II,  Book  I,  Vol.  II,  p.  38,  he  says  that  the  churches 
which  belonged  to  the  abbeys,  "  were  in  value  above  the  half  of  Eng- 
land." And  p.  458,  he  tells  us  that  in  the  days  of  Bloody  Mary,  "the 
statutes  of  mortmain  were  repealed  for  twenty  years  to  come." 

No  doubt  this  bitter  persecutor  and  her  despicable  minions  thought 
twenty  years  would  be  long  enough  to  recover  the  best  part  of  what 
they  had  lost  in  the  days  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.  So  says 
Burnet  in  the  29lh  page  of  the  Introduction  to  Vol.  III. 

Some  may,  however,  say  that  all  this  state  of  things  in  England 
has  long  since  passed  by.  Let  such  look  into  the  journals  of  the  day, 
and  their  error  will  be  corrected.  A  late  number  of  the  London  Pa- 
triot contains  the  following: 

"At  a  recent  meeting  in  Ireland,  the  following  authentic  statement 
was  made  by  the  Chairman.  He  begged  to  be  permitted  to  read  the 
following  document,  which  had  reference  to  the  amount  of  property 
left  by  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  church: — 

Fowler,  Archbishop  of  Dubhn,  -  -  £150,000 
Beresford,  Archbishop  of  Tuam,  -  -  250,000 
Agar,  Archbishop  of  Cashel,  ...  400,000 

Stopford,  Bishop  of  Cork,  -         -         -  25,000 

Percy,  Bishop  of  Dromore,    -         -         -  40,000 

Cleaver,  Bishop  of  Ferns,  «         -         -         50,000 

Bernard,  Bishop  of  Limerick,         -         -  60,000 

Porter,  Bishop  of  Clogher,  ...  250,000 
Hawkins,  Bishop  of  Raphoe,  -         -  25,000 

.  Knox,  Bishop  of  Clogher,  -         -         -       250,000 

Stuart,  Archbishop  of  Armaii,         -         -  300,000 

'•"otal,  £1,875,000 


34 

And  these  men  call  themselves  the  successors  of  the   twelve  poor 
fishermen  of  Galilee ! 

The  following  statement  is  taken  from  the  Eclectic  Review. 

"The  Canterbury  chapter,  consisting  of  a  dozen  canons,  enjoys 
about  £15,000  per  annum;  at  Durham  the  same  apostolic  number 
share  about  £30,000  a  year.  London  is  nearly  the  same.  Westmin- 
ster and  Windsor  come  very  close  to  £20,000  a  year  each.  The 
Warden  and  ten  Winchester  fellows  share  about  £10,500  for  positively 
doing  nothing.  Not  a  sermon  can  be  extracted  from  one  of  them  that 
we  are  aware  of.  The  entire  income  of  our  cathedral  and  collegiate 
bodies  stands  in  the  parliamentary  report  at  £284,241,  exclusive  of 
fines,  leases,  residences,  and  the  like ;  which,  as  is  well  known,  and 
was  demonstrated  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  Lord  Monteagle, 
would  add  another  £150,000  of  annual  revenue  to  the  amount  by  a 
fair  change  of  leaseholds  into  freeholds.  It  is  not  too  much  therefore 
to  take  the  gross  sum,  comprehending  within  it  about  sixty  sinecure 
rectories  at  550  representing  a  capital  of  about  eighteen  millions  sterl- 
ing, at  the  present  prices  of  landed  property." 

Does  any  man  wish  to  see  such  a  state  of  things  in  this  land  ?  Even 
to  contemplate  it  as  possible  a  thousand  years  hence  is  revolting  to  our 
best  feelings.  Surely,  then,  you  will  not  render  it  certain,  nor  even 
probable,  by  a  wholesale  grant  of  charters.  Who,  that  knows  the  his- 
tory of  manners  in  England  for  the  last  hundred  years,  can  be  ignorant 
of  the  fact  that  highly  salaried  clergymen,  and,  by  their  permission, 
their  sons  have  often  figured  in  fox-hunts  and  steeple-chases,  to  the 
great  annoyance  of  the  humble  laborer,  whose  crops  they  have  injured 
and  exposed  ? 

HOW    THIS    THING    GREW. 

The  question  arises,  how  was  all  this  property  of  the  English  es- 
tablishment acquired  ?  The  answer  is  given  by  Judge  Tucker  in  the 
opinion  already  quoted.  He  says:  "The  evil  has  not  sprung  from 
the  particular  creeds,  or  the  peculiarities  of  confession  of  faith  ;  it  grows 
out  of  the  very  nature  of  the  thing.  The.  church,  while  it  is  continual- 
ly acquiring  from  the  liberality  of  the  pious,  or  the  fears  of  the  timid, 
or  the  credulity  of  the  ignorant,  never  can  part  with  any  thing ;  and 
thus,  like  those  sustaining  powers  in  mechanics,  which  retain  whatever 
they  once  have  gained,  it  advances  with  a  step  that  never  tires,  and 
that  never  retrogrades.  The  natural  cupidity  of  the  human  heart  is 
watched  by  the  devotee  himself,  with  the.less  jealousy  in  his  pursuit 
after  acquisitions  for  the  church,  since  he  flatters  himself  that  it  is  pu- 
rified from  the  dross  of  selfishness,  and  is  sanctified  by  the  holy  objects 


35 

oi'  his  ambition.     Thus  it  is,  that,  however  humble  in  its  beginnings, 
a  church  establishment  must  gather  strength  in  its  progress. 

Parva  metu  prime  ;  mox  sese  attoUit  in  auras 
lagrediturque  solo,  et  caput  inter  nubila  condit." 

In  other  words  it  was  by  the  ''paulatim  process,"  that  all  this  pro- 
perty and  power  have  been  accumulated  through  the  course  of  many 
centuries.  When  Apelles  was  asked  why  he  took  so  much  pains  with 
a  piece  of  painting,  his  answer  was,  "  I  paint  for  eternity." 

His  fame  and  his  saying  have  come  down  to  us.  When  you  lewis- 
late  I  hope  you  will  remember  that  you  are  legislating  for  ao-es  as  late 
as  shall  hear  of  the  fame  of  Apelles. 

If  you  go  into  this  business,  I  hope  it  will  not  be  until  the  legislature 
shall  have  appointed  a  large  committee,  learned  in  the  history  of  law, 
who  shall  present  you  a  scheme  guarding  in  every  point  the  liberties 
of  the  present  and  coming  generations — a  committee  wiser  than  all  the 
world  that  has  gone  before  them,  for  none  have  been  wise  enough  hith- 
erto to  prevent  the  atrocious  abuses  just  alluded  to. 

MEXICO. 

Some  may,  however,  say  that  these  examples  are  drawn  from  mo- 
narchical governments,  and  from  the  old  world.  Tha;t  is  true.  Let 
us  come  to  the  new  world,  and  to  a  sister  republic.  I  refer  to  Mexico. 
Like  ourselves,  she  cast  off",  by  a  successful  revolution,  the  authority 
of  the  mother  country.  She  established  the  Constitution  of  1824.  Un- 
der the  most  sacred  forms  of  law,  decree,  and  grant,  she  invited  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  settle  in  at  least  a  portion  of  her  territo- 
ry, guaranteeing  to  them  a  federative  system,  free  toleration  of  the 
Protestant  religion,  the  inviolability  of  private  property,  and  a  republi- 
can form  of  government.  The  nation,  though  long  oppressed  and  de- 
based, was  beginning  to  rise.  In  provincial  assembhes,  and  in  the  na- 
tional congress,  men  were  learning,  that  they  had  rights.  They  even 
ventured  to  think  for  themselves,  and  to  maintain  their  opinions  with 
argument.  Some  began  to  think,  that  if  they  could  judge  for  them- 
selves in  affairs  of  government,  and  international  law,  possibly  they 
might  learn  the  will  of  their  Maker  from  his  holy  word,  without  tlie 
infallible  guidance  of  a  priest.  In  short,  the  spirit  of  freedom  wns 
growing  among  the  people.  The  Church  dio-nitaries  took  the  alarm, 
and  enquired,  "  whereunto  will  this  thing  grow  ?"  They  looked  about 
for  a  tool  of  their  evil  designs,  A  man  supposed  to  be  of  the  right  stamp 
was  found.    His  name  was  D,  Antonio  Lopez  de  Santa  Anna,    Under  the 


36 

plan  of  Toluca,  which  bears  date  29th  May,  1835,  the  Constitution  i« 
destroyed,  and  a  Central  Government  is  to  be  established.  The  Priest- 
hood  is  again  triumphant.  The  car  of  Liberty  is  rolled  back,  and 
chained  to  the  altar  of  these  miscreants.  Santa  Anna  is  at  the  head  of 
affairs,  the  tool  of  bigotry,  despotism  and  cruelty.  But  things  had  gone 
too  far  to  allow  such  a  revolution  without  at  least  a  passive  resistance 
in  some  quarter.  Therefore,  war  must  be  waged,  and  war  costs  money. 
True  to  their  instincts,  the  priests  came  forth,  with  the  Arch  Bishop  of 
Mexico  at  their  head,  and  pledged  the  needful'  sum.  Two  Bishops 
gave  one  million  of  dollars. 

Thus  the  business  of  enslaving  mankind  to  the  hierarchy  went  brave- 
ly on,  until  a  certain  San  Jacinto  affair  checked  the  progress  of  this 
chief  and  tool  of  tyrants.  But  it  checked  it  only  as  to  one  of  the  States, 
(Texas,)  and  that  now  righteously  and  lawfully  freed  from  Mexican 
misrule.     The  rest  are  caught  in  the  trap  of  these  priests. 

To  give  some  idea  of  the  splendor  of  this  church  property  in  Mexi- 
co, allow  me  to  present  one  item  : 

In  the  Cathedral  of  Puebla  de  los  Angeles  hangs  a  chandelier  of 
massive  gold  and  silver,  not  of  ounces  avoirdupois,  but  whole  tons  in 
weight,  collected  under  the  viceroys  from  the  various  tributary  mines. 
On  the  right  hand  side  of  the  altar  stands  "a  carved  figure  of  the  Virgin 
dressed  in  beautiful  embossed  satin — executed  by  the  nuns  of  the  place. 
Around  her  neck  is  sdspended  a  row  of  pearls,  of  precious  value,  a 
coronet  of  pure  gold  encircles  her  brow,  and  her  waist  is  bound  with  a 
zone  of  pure  diamonds  and  enormous  brilliants.  The  candelabras  in 
the  cathedral  are  of  silver  and  gold,  too  massive  to  be  raised  even  by 
the  strongest  hand  ;  and  the  Host  is  one  mass  of  splendid  jewels  of  the 
richest  kind.  In  the  Mexican  cathedral  there  is  a  railing  of  exquisite 
v/orkmanship,  five  feet  in  height,  and  two  hundred  feet  in  length,  of 
gold  and  silver,  on  which  stands  a  figure  of  tlie  Virgin  of  Remedois, 
with  three  petticoats — one  of  pearls,  one  of  emeralds,  one  of  diamonds  : 
the  figure  alone  is  valued  at  three  millions  of  dollars.  In  the  church 
of  Gaudeloupe  there  are  still  richer  and  more  splendid  articles  ;  and  in 
that  of  Loretto  they  have  figures  representing  the  Last  Supper,  before 
whom  are  placed  piles  of  gold  and  silver  plate,  to  represent  the  sim- 
plicity of  that  event.  It  is  the  same  in  all  churches  and  cathedrals  in 
Mexico.  The  starving  Lepero  kneels  before  a  figure  of  the  Virgin, 
worth  three  millions,  yet  would  die  of  want  before  he  would  allow  him- 
self to  touch  one  of  the  brilliants  in  her  robes,  worth  to  him  a  fortune* 
About  a  hundred  millions  of  dollars  are  thus  locked  up  in  church  orna- 
ments, while  nothing  is  laid  out  in  public  education,  roads,  canals,  pub- 
lic improvements,  and  true  national  glory. 


37 

MORA. 


I  hold  in  my  hand  a  volume  of  a  work  by  an  eminent  Mexican,  who 
for  many  years  has  resided  in  Paris.  His  work  is  in  2  Vols,  8  vo. 
The  title  page  reads  thus:  "  Obras  Sueltas,  (Loose  Leaves,)  de  Jose 
Maria  Luis  Mora,  Ciudadano  Mexicano.  Paris,  1837."  On  pages  372 
and  373,  Vol.  I,  he  gives  extended  tables  of  the  Church  Property  up 
to  the  year  1832.  According  to  him  the  total  annual  nett  income  of 
the  hierarchy  is  $7,456,593,  which  invested  at  the  rate  of  5  per  cent, 
per  annum,  corresponds  to  a  capital  of  $149,131,860.  The  value  of 
the  unproductive  property,  vases,  images,  pearls,  precious  stones,  &c., 
&c.,  is  §30,031,894.  This  is  exclusive  of  Libraries  of  Convents,  &c. 
Thus  the  whole  church  property  of  Mexico  is  equal  to  $179,163,754. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  Sir,  that  this  view  is  given  by  a  Mexican,  a 
Patriot,  a  papist,  a  man,  who  desires  to  see  the  Romish  Church  pros- 
per in  that  country,  a  man,  who  in  the  same  work  has  given  a  '' Fre- 
supuesto,'"  or  estimate  of  what  he  was  willing  to  allow  for  the  support 
of  the  Clergy  in  Mexico,  amounting  to  $4,889,200  per  annum,  and  cor- 
responding to  a  capital,  at  5  per  cent.,  of  $97,784,000  ;  and  which  is 
contrasted  with  the  present  amount,  viz  :  $7,456,593  per  annum,  or  a 
capital,  productive  and  unproductive,  of  $179,163,754. 

In  these  tables,  so  long  as  they  correspond  with  the  facts  in  the  case, 
the  doom  of  Mexican  liberty  is  written. 

OUR    COUNTRY. 

Leaving  other  countries,  let  us  come  to  our  own.  Have  we  no  warn- 
ings from  corporations  of  overgrown  wealth  in  our  own  land  ?  Is  there 
not  already  a  great  accumulation  of  wealth  in  the  corporation  of  Trini- 
ty Church,  New.  York  ?  An  intelligent  gentleman  from  that  city  re- 
cently informed  me,  that  he  supposed  it  to  amount  to  one  hundred 
millions.  Probably  his  estimate  was  too  large.  Suppose  it  too  large 
by  one-half,  or  even  three-foarths,  and  yet  that  sum  ($25,000,000,) 
continually  augmenting.  AVhat  a  mighty  engitie  may  it  become  in  de- 
stroying our. noblest  institutions  ?  I  may  say  what  an  engine  has  it  al- 
ready become  for  the  destruction  of  the  purity  of  religion,  and  the  de- 
cency of  manners  in  the  person  of  the  highest  church  dignitary  con- 
nected with  it !  I  have  no  heart  6ven  to  mention  the  degrading  vices 
and  lewd  majiners  of  which  he  has  been  found  guilty  by  the  proper 
authorities  of  his  own  sect,  yet,  behold,  how  he  is  defended,  excused, 
and  hugged  to  the  bosom  by  many,  and  even  by  the  convention  of  his 
own  diocese. 

Does  any  man  believe  that  but  for  the  influence  remote  and  imme- 


38 

diate  of  these  vast  chartered  funds  he  could  have  hekl  his  present  po- 
sition even  for  a  day  ?  Very  sure  am  I  that  EpiseopaUans  in  Virginia 
have  no  more  sympathy  ^vith  such  men  than  other  denominations  have. 
A  long  course  of  corruption,  founded  probably  as  much  on  the  evil  in- 
fluence of  wealth  as  any  thing  else,  is  necessary  to  bring  a  church  to 
such  a  condition. 

I  am  happy  that  one  of  the  gentlemen  has  had  the  candor  to  say 
that :  "  It  is  unquestionably  true,  that  there  are  examples  of  ecclesias- 
tical opulence,  far  transcending  what  we  can  conceive  to  be  safe,  legit- 
imate, or  useful."  I  ask  the  committee  to  note  the  admission,  and 
make  the  proper  inferences  from  it.  He  does  not  indeed  say  that  these 
cases  are  to  be  found  in  our  country,  but  if  you  create  two  thousand 
religious  corporations  by  one  act,  who  will  be  security  that  our  coun- 
try will  not  soon  furnish  as  many  of  them  as  any  other  ? 

STATE  OF   THE  QUESTION. 

But  it  seems  that  careful  as  I  was  in  the  beginning  of  this  debate  to 
state  the  question,  I  am  met  with  a  flat  denial,  that  any  corporate  pow- 
ers, any  chartered  rights  are  sought  at  your  hand.  I  confess  I  am 
amazed  at  this  denial;  and  I  must  say  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the 
oft-repeated  language  of  the  petition  itself,  and  of  the  whole  history 
of  this  movement.  See  pp.  8,  9.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mittee to  the  nature  of  corporations.  Judge  Blackstone,  Book  1, 
chap.  18,  Vol.  1,  pp.  473,  476,  thus  defines  the  "incidents  which  are 
tacitly  annexed  of  course"  to  a  "  corporation  already  formed  and 
named." 

"1.  To  have  perpetual  succession.  This  is  the  very  end  of  its  in- 
corporation ;  for  there  cannot  be  a  succession  forever,  without  an  in- 
corporation :  and  therefore  all  Aggregate  corporations  have  a  power 
necessarily  implied,  of  electing  members  in  the  room  of  such  as  go  off. 

2.  To  sue  or  be  sued,  implead  or  be  impleaded,  grant  or  reeeive,  by 
its  corporate  name,  and  do  all  other  acts  as  natural  persons  may. 

3.  To  purchase  lands,  and  hold  them  for  the  benefit  of  themselves 
and  their  successors ;  which  two  are  consequential  to  the  former. 

4.  To  have  a  common  seal.  For  a  corporation,  being  an  invisible 
body,  cannot  manifest  its  intentions  by  any  personal  act  or  oral  dis- 
course ;  it  therefore  acts  and  speaks  only,  by  its  common  seal.  For, 
though  the  particular  members  may  express  their  private  consents  to 
any  act  by  words,  or  signing  their  names,  yet  this  does  not  bind  the 
corporation ;  it  is  the  fixing  of  the  seal,  and  that  only,  which  unites 
the  several  assents  of  the  individuals,  who  compose  the  community, 
and  makes  one  joint  assent  of  the  whole."     [The  modification  of  this 


39 

principle  it  is  unnecessary  to  state.  Later  authorities  give  the  excep- 
tions clearly.] 

5.  To  make  bj^-Iaws  or  private  statutes  for  the  better  government  of 
the  corporation,  which  are  bincUng  upon  themfi&lves,  unless  contrary 
to  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  then  they  are  void.  This  is  also  included 
by  law  in  the  very  act  of  incorporation;  for  as  natural  reason  is  given 
to  the  natural  body  for  the  governing  it,  so  by-laws  or  statutes  are  a 
sort  of  political  reason  to  govern  the  body  politic.  And  this  right  of 
making  by-laws  for  their  own  government,  not  contrary  to  the  law  of 
the  land,  was  allowed  by  the  law  of  the  twelve  tables  at  Rome.  But 
no  trading  company  is  witli  us  allowed  to  make  by-laws  which  may 
affect  the  King's  prerogative,  or  the  common  profit  of  the  people,  under 
penalty  of  £40,  unless  they  be  approved  by  the  Chancellor,  Treasurer, 
and  chief  justices,  or  the  judges  of  assize  in  their  circuits;  and  even 
though  they  be  so  approved,,  still  if  contrary  to  law  they  are  void. 
These  five  powers  are  inseparably  incident  to  every  corporation,  at 
least  to  every  corporation  aggregate:  for  two  of  them,  though  they 
may  be  practised,  yet  are  very  unnecessary  to  a  corporation  sole:  viz: 
to  have  a  corporate  seal  to  testify  his  sole  assent,  and  to  make  statutes 
tor  the  regulation  of  his  own  conduct." 

From  this  quotation  it  plainly  appears,  that  unless  the  petitioners  do 
ask  for  acts  of  incorporation,  they  ask  for  nothing;  and  then  there  is 
nothing  before  you,  and  then  this  whole  debate  is  idle.  But  do  they 
not  ask  for '-perpetual  succession"  in  the  legal  sense  of  that  term? 
Do  they  not  ask  the  power  of  ^eing  and  of  being  sued?  If  not,  how 
will  they  i-ecover  money  due  them?  Surely  not  by  violence.  Do 
they  not  ask  the  privilege  of  investing  their  funds  as  they  think  most 
safe  and  productive?  Tiien-they  wish  the  power  of  "purchasing 
lands."  A  deed  of  trust,  or  a  mortgage  on  real  estate  is  but  a  condi- 
tional purchase  of  lands,  and  if  the  beneficiary  in  said  deed  may  not 
actually  purchase,  the  (\cqx\  may  be  a  nullity.  De  they  not  desire  to 
"have  a  common  seal,"  to  be  used  in  deeds  and  covenants?  If  not, 
then  they  propose,  after  getting  all  they  ask,  to  act  in  their  own  per- 
sons just  as  if  you  had  granted  them  nothing,  become  personally  own- 
ers of  the  real  estate  they  may  manage  for  the  congregations  they  rep- 
resent, and  of  course  they  will  be  nothing  but  ordinary  and  irresponsi- 
ble trustees,  such  as  we  have  now.  Do  they  not  desire  the  power  of 
making  by-laws?  They  maybe  few  and  simple;  they  may  not  be 
published  in  a  code;  they  may  be  unwritten;  they  may  be  mere 
usages ;  but  they  may  be  by-laws  notwithstanding.  If  the  petitioners 
wish  no  such  power  then  they  wish   to  govern  their  property  without 


40 

any  principles  whatever,  or  as  Blackstone  says,  without     political  rea- 
son." 

But  as  tliere  is  positively  nothing  in  all  this  discussion,  except  an 
unmeaning  war  of  words,  and  as  you  can  do  positively  nothing  for  the 
petitioners  over  and  above  what  they  .now  possess,  except  by  giving 
corporate  powers,  I  must  be  permitted  to  dwell  a  little  on  this  new 
turn  attempted  to  be  given  to  the  discussion.  All  business  in  courts 
of  law  and  equity  must  be  in  the  name  of  some  person.  Persons  are 
either  natural  or  artificial.  The  petitioners,  as  natural  persons,  labor 
under  no  disabilities.  They  can  take,  hold,  and  transmit  property, 
sue  and  be  sued,  give,  alien,  sell  and  convey  as  may  please  them  best. 
But  they  ask  to  be  made  artificial  persons  for  certain  purposes.  In 
other  words  they  ask  that  natural  persons  may  variously  and  numer- 
ously associate  all  over  the  state  and  be  empowered  to  perform  in  law 
what  natural  persons  may  perform.  I  ask  the  Committee  to  consider 
the  following  legal  authorities.  The  first  is  found  on  page  1  of  Angel 
and  Ames  on  Corporations : 

WHAT  IS    A   CORPORATION? 

"A  corporation  is  a  body,  created  by  law,  composed  of  individuals 
united  under  a  common  name,  the  members  of  which  succeed  each 
other,  so  that  the  body  continues  the  same,  notwithstanding  the  change 
of  the  individuals  who  compose  it,  and  is,  for  certain  purposes,  consid- 
ered as  a  natural  person." 

If  any  thing  at  all  is  sought  by  the  petitioners,  do  they  not  ask  as 
much  as  is  here  declared  to  constitute  a  corporation?  Their  alleged 
grievance  now  is  not  that  they  have  been  disfranchised  as  natural  per- 
sons but  that  they  have  not  been  enfranchised  over  and  above  what 
they  naturally  possess. 

Here  is  another  authority. 

Kyd,  tlie  first  Englishman  who  professed,  to  write  exclusively  and 
systematically  on  corporations,  says :   (1  Kyd,  13.) 

"A  corporation,  or  body  politic,  or  body  incorporate,  is  a  collection 
of  many  individuals  united  in  one  body,  under  a  special  denomination, 
having  perpetual  Succession  under  an  artificial  form,  and  vested  by  the 
policy  of  the  law  with  a  capacity  of  acting,  in  several  respects,  as  an 
individual,  particularly  of  taking  and  granting  property,  contracting  ob- 
ligations, and  of  suing  and  being  sued;  of  enjoying  privileges  and  im- 
munities in  common,  and  of  exercising  a  variety  of  political  rights, 
more  or  less  extensive,  according  to  the  design  of  its  institution,  or  the 
powers  conferred  upon  it,  either  at  the  time  of  its  creation,  or  at  any 
subsequent  period  of  its  existence," 


41 

This  is  just  what  I  have  all  along  said  was  asked  for  by  the  peti- 
tioners. 

Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  the  case  of  Dartmouth  College  vs.  Wood- 
ward, (4  Wheaton,  R.,  p.  636,)  says: 

"A  corporation  is  an  artificial  being,  invisible,  intangible,  and  exist- 
ing only  in  contemplation  of  law.  Being  the  mere  creature  of  law,  it 
possesses  only  those  properties  which  the  charter  of  its  creation  con- 
fers upon  it,  either  expressly,  or  as  incidental  to  its  very  existence. 
These  are  such  as  are  supposed  best  calculated  to  effect  the  object  for 
which  it  was  created.  Among  the  most  important  are  immortality, 
and,  if  the  expression  may  be  allowed,  individuality ;  properties,  by 
which  a  perpetual  succession  of  many  persons  are  considered  as  the 
same,  and  may  act  as  a  single  individual." 

The  same  eminent  jurist,  in  the  case  of  Providence  Bank  vs.  Bil- 
lings, (4  Peters,  R.,  562,)  Says: 

"The  great  object  of  an  incorporation  is  to  bestow  the  character  and 

properties  of  individuality  on  a  collective  and  changing  body  of  men." 

Some  of  the  terms  in  which  these  definitions  are  given,  require  some 

explanation.     I  will  give  authoritative  interpretations.     Thus  say  Angel 

and  Ames,  pp.  4,  5,  6: 

"A  corporation,  we  have  seen,  is  a  political  institution  merely,  and 
it  has,  therefore,  no  other  capacities  than  such  as  are  necessary  to  ef- 
fect the  purpose  of  its  creation.  It  cannot  be  deemed  a  moral  agent, 
subject  to  moral  obligation;  nor  can  it,  like  a  natural  person,  be  sub- 
ject to  personal  suflering.  This  principle  explains  many  of  the  inca- 
pacities ascribed  to  a  corporation,  and  without,  as  Mr.  Kyd  says,  hav- 
ing recourse  to  the  quaint  observation,  common  in  the  old  books,  "that 
it  exists  merely  in  idea,  and  has  neither  soul  nor  body."  It  is  reported 
by  Lord  Coke,  that  C.  Baron  Man  wood  demonstrated  that  corporations 
have  no  soul  by  the  following  curious  syllogism :  "None  can  create 
souls  but  God;  but  a  corporation  is  created  by  the  King;  therefore  a 
corporation  can  have  no  soul."  On  these  principles  it  is  that  a  cor- 
poration cannot  be  guilty  of  a  crime,  as  treason  or  felony." 

"  The  immortality  of  a  corporation  means  only  its  capacity  to  take 
in  perpetual  succession,  as  long  as  the  corporation  exists ;  so  far  is  it 
from  being  literally  true  that  a  corporation  is  immortal,  many  corpora- 
tions of  recent  creation  are  limited  in  their  duration  to  a  certain  num- 
ber of  years.  A  corporation  without  Hmitation  may  be  dissolved,  and 
consequently  cease  to  exist,  for  want  of  members,  voluntary  surrender 
of  franchises,  forfeiture  by  misuser,  &c.  When  it  is  said,  therefore, 
that  a  corporation  is  immortal,  we  can  understand  nothing  more  than 


42 

that  it  may  exist  for  an  indefinite  duration;  and  the  authorities  which 
have  been  cited  to  prove  its  immortality  in  any  other  sense,  do  not 
warrant  the  conclusion  drawn  from  them." 

"  Upon  the  application  of  the  epithet  invisibility  to  corporations, 
which  is  often  met  with  in  the  books,  Mr.  Kyd  has  bestowed  the  fol- 
lowing just  criticism :  "That  a  body  framed  by  the  policy  of  man,  a 
body  whose  parts  and  members  are  mortal,  should  in  its  own  nature 
be  immortal;  or  that  a  body  composed  of  many  bulky,  visible  bodies 
should  be  invisible,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word,  seems 
beyond  the  reach  of  common  understandings.  A  corporation  is  as 
visible  a  body  as  an  army ;  for  though  the  commission  or  authority  be 
not  seen  by  every  one,  yet  the  body,  united  by  that  authority,  is  seen 
by  all  but  the  blind.  When,  therefore,  a  corporation  is  said  to  be  in- 
visible, that  expression  must  be  understood  of  the  right  in  many  per- 
sons collectively,  to  act  as  a  corporation,  and  then  it  is  as  visilile  in 
the  eye  of  the  law,  as  any  other  right  whatever,  of  which  natural  per- 
sons are  capable :  it  is  a  right  of  such  a  nature,  that  every  member, 
separately  considered,  has  a  freehold  in  it,  and  all,  jointly  considered, 
have  an  inheritance  which  may  go  in  succession." 

"The  above  criticis^n  will  apply  to  the  intangible  nature  ascribed 
to  corporations,  and  it  seems  equally  impossible  to  comprehend  why  a 
number  of  bulky  persons  may  not  be  touched,  as  M'ell  as  be  seen.  In 
one  sense,  however,  a  corporation  is  intangible,  and  that  is,  if  an  exe- 
cution issue  against  it,  there  is  no  body  which  can  be  arrested;  for 
although  the  officer  may  both  perceive  and  touch  the  bodies  of  the 
individual  members,  yet  he  cannot  take  the  body  of  either  of  them  by 
virtue  of  the  execution  against  the  corporate  body.  It  was  held,  as 
long  since  as  the  reign  of  Edward  IV.,  that  a  corporation  could  not  be 
imprisoned ;  and  the  same  doctrine  has  been  since  repeatedly  recog- 
nized." ' 

I  then  refer  it  to  the  Committee  candidly  to  judge,  whether  the  peti- 
tioners are  not  asking  for  acts  of  incorporation.  Nor  are  they  asking 
to  be  erected  into  quasi  corporations,  (see  Angel  and  Ames,  p.  17,) 
and  if  they  were  asking  to  be  made  quasi  corporations,  they  would  be 
asking  for  that  which  is  perhaps  more  general,  less  definite,  and  less 
controllable  in  some  respects  than  corporations  themselves.  "The 
overseers  of  the  poor"  for  any  county  are  a  quasi  corporation.  That 
is,  for  certain  purposes  they  may  act  as  if  they  were  a  corporation. 
They  have  perpetual  succession;  thej^  can  take  and  hold,  sue  and  be 
sued.     They  are  called  a  quasi  corporation  because  the  fact  of  their 


43 

•appointment  does,  without  an  act  of  the  Legislature  concerning  them, 
invest  them  with  these  powers. 

Lord  Bacon  says:  "Iterations  are  commonly  loss  of  time:  but  there 
is  no  such  gain  of  time,  as  to  iterate  often  the  state  of  the  question; 
for  it  chaseth  away  many  a  frivolous  speech  as  it  is  coming  forth."  I 
trust,  therefore,  I  shall  be  pardoned  for  this  clearing  of  the  state  of  the 
question.  Having  done  so,  it  is  proper  I  should  here  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  committee  and  legislature  have  no  evidence  whatever, 
that  the  people  of  this  State  do  generally  desire  any  such  law,  as  that 
I  oppose.  On  the  contrary  I  believe  a  vast  majority  are  utterly  averse 
to  it. 

THE    MKTHODISTS. 

The  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  called  the 
"Virginia  Conference,"  in  session  at  Norfolk,  Notember,  1845,  adopt- 
ed with  entire  unanimity,  the  following  preamble  and  resolution,  intro- 
duced by  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  (now,  1847,  President  of  Randolph  Macon 
College.)  viz  : 

"Whereas,  the  existing  laws  of  Virginia,  securing  the  right  of  pro- 
perty in  houses  of  worship  and  in  two  acres  of  land  in  towns,  and  in 
thirty  acres  of  land  in  the  country,  to  boards  of  trustees,  for  the  use 
of  the  church  or  congregation,  are  amply  sufficient;  and  whereas,  any 
act  for  the  general  incorporation  of  churches  or  their  benevolent  insti- 
tutions, empowering  them  to  hold  any  greater  amount  of  money  or 
property,  would,  in  our  judgmentj  be  of  dangerous  tendency  both  in  a 
political  and  ecclesiastical  point  of  view,  because  calculated  in  practical 
operation  to  endow  the  ministry  of  the  several  churches  and, render 
them  independent  of  the  active  liberality  of  the  people  they  serve ; 
therefore. 

Resolved,  That  we  do  not  concur  in  the  efTort  now  being  made  by 
the  Protestant  Episcopalians  and  others,  to  secure  from  the  Legislature 
of  Virginia  a  general  act  incorporating  the  several  churches  with  their 
benovolent  institutions,  and  that  we  earnestly  recommend  to  our  breth- 
ren of  the  laity  maturely  to  investigate  the  probable  results  of  this 
movement  before  they  lend  their  names  or  influence  to  further  its  ob- 
jects." 

THE   PRESBYTERIANS. 

The  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Virginia  took  up  the  subject  at  its.  ses- 
sions at  Norfolk  in  the  fall  of  1844,  and  voted  as  follows: 

"  Whereas,  the  Synod  of  Virginia  are  informed  through  the  public 
prints,  that  petitions  Mall  be  presented  to  the  Legislature  of  this  Com- 
monwealth, earnestly  calling  upon  them  to  enact  some  general  law  for 
the  indiscriminate  incorporation  of  institutions,  claiming  to  be  Literary, 


44 

Benevolent,  or  Religious,  and  that  gi-cat  efforts  are  making  by  gentle 
men  every  way  entitled  to  respect  for  their  piety,  talents,  and  high 
character,  to  present  these  petitions  in  an  imposing  form;  therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  this  body,  composed  of  the  ministers  and  Elders 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Virginia,  are  imperiously  called  upon 
for  an  expression  of  their  views  on  a  subject  so  deeply  affecting  the 
religious  and  political  interests  of  the  community,  among  whom  they 
dwell,  and  of  whom  they  form  a  component  part. 

2.  Resolved,  That  this  Synod,  in  the  main,  cordially  approve  of  the 
general  policy  of  the  Legislature,  in  abstaining  from  all  interference 
with  religion,  farther  than  to  spread  Over  it  the  shield  of  their  protec- 
tion, so  as  to  secure  entire  religious  freedom  to  every  inhabitant  of  the 
State. 

3.  Resolved,  That  this  Synod  cannot  view  without  serious  appre- 
hensions, the  adoption  of  such  a  measure  as  that  set  forth  in  the  fore- 
going preamble,  which  the  history  of  the  church  and  of  the  world, 
proves  to  be  fraught  with  so  much  evil  to  the  welfare,  both  civil  and 
religious,  of  mankind. 

4.  Resolved,  That  this  Synod  do  enter  their  most  solemn  protest 
against  the  enactment  by  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  of  any  general 
law  for  the  indiscriminate  incorporation  of  institutions,  claiming  to  be 
Literary,  Benevolent,  or  Religious. 

5.  Resolved,  That  this  Synod  do  most  respectfully  ask  of  the  Leg- 
islature of  this  Commonwealth,  that  they  will  make  no  fundamental 
change  in  the  existing  laws  of  the  State,  which  have  any  bearing  upon 
the  subject  of  Religion  or  Religious  Institutions; — but  that  they  will 
leave  themselves  at  liberty  to  consider  each  particular  application, 
which  may  hereafter  be  presented  to  them,  on  its  own  merits,  and  to 
act  on  it  under  a  sense  of  their  duty  to  God  and  to  their  country. 

6.  Resolved,  That  should  the  petitions,  above  referred  to,  come  up 
for  consideration  in  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  the  Stated  Clerk 
be  directed  to  forward  an  attested  copy  of  this  preamble  and  these 
resolutions  to  the  Speaker  of  the  Senate,  and  to  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Delegates." 

I  understand  that  to  the  last  General  Assembly  a  memorial,  adverse 
to  the  petition  before  you,  was  presented.  Not  having  seen  it  I  shall 
say  nothing  concerning  its  contents. 

BAI'TISTS. 

There  has  been  an  attempt  made  to  produce  the  impression  upon  the 
Committee,  that  the  Baptists  favored  the  passage  of  a  general  law. 
This   I  believe  is   an  entire  mistake.     That  denomination  does,  I  be- 


45 

iieve,  desire  acts  of  incorporation  for  two  or  three  religious  societies  ; 
but  I  hold  in  my  hdnd  a  paper,  which  has  been  laid  upon  the  desks  of 
all  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  signed  by  the  Reverend  J.  B.  Jeter, 
Pastor  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  in  this  city,  in  which  he  denies  for 
himself  and  his  denomination,  that  he  or  they  desire  any  corporate  pow- 
er to  be  granted  to  religious  congregations. 

EPISCOPALIANS, 

The  "Journal  of  the  Convention"  for  May  last,  shov,^s  that  there 
are  in  tjie  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  Diocese,  4,328  commu- 
nicants of  both  sexes,  and  all  white  except  eleven.  Now  I  do  not  be- 
lieve a  majority,  or  even  a  moiety  of  the  males  among  them  desire  the 
passage  of  any  such  law.  I  have  heard  many  lay  members  of  that 
communion  express  their  views  on  the  subject,  and  out  of  this  city  I 
have  heard  but  one  say  a  word  in  favor  of  the  measure.  I  have  heard 
many  here  and  elsewhere  utterly  condemn  the  movement,  not  as  ill- 
meant,  but  as  the  fruit  of  mistaken  views.  No  people  in  the  Common- 
wealth have  given  me  more  aid  and  comfort  in  resisting  the  petidon, 
than  zealous  and  respectable  communicants  in  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church.  But  I  infer  the  opposition  of  the  body  of  the  Episcopa- 
lians of  Virginia  to  the  petition  from  grounds  far  more  conclusive  than 
my  oWn  observation.  The  Convention  of  that  church  has  been  voting 
in  favor  of  this  matter  for  some  years,  as  I  have  already  shown.  What 
has  been  the  eifect  ?  Have  the  pfeople  responded  '!  No,  Sir.  In 
Bishop  Meade's  address  to  the  Convention  last  May,  I  find  these  re- 
markable words  :  "  It  is  proper  to  state,  that,  in  order  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  Virginia 
to  the  resolution  of  the  Convention  recommending  petitions  to  the  Le- 
gislature from  the  different  parishes,  I  addressed  them  in  a  Circular 
through  the  Southern  Churchman,  during  the  last  summer.  I  am 
sorry  to  say  that  the  resolution  of  the  Convention  was  complied  with 
in  but  few  instances.  Of  course,  nothing  but  failure  could  be  expect- 
ed, if  friends  of  the  measure  exhibited  such  lukewarmness  in  its  prose- 
cution." Here,  then,  with  all  Bishop  Meade's  powerful  influence, 
backed  by  the  Convention  and  a  Circular  sent  out.  Episcopalians  in 
Virginia  generally  decline  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with  the  measure. 
But  "  few"  even  sign  a  petition.  They  are  generally  "lukewarm." 
This  statement  or  something  else  caused  the  Convention  at  its  last 
meeting  by  a  formal  resolution  to  "  call  upon  all  the  ministers,  mem- 
bers and  friends  of  the  Episcopal  church  of  Virginia  to   adopt  such 


46 

measures  on  their  part,  as  the  Committee  shall  advise."     Journal,  1845. 
p.  33. 

Let  us  now  see  the  result.  You  have  one  solitary  petition  before 
you  purporting  to  be  from  the  Episcopal  church,  drawn  up  or  present- 
ed no  doubt  by  the  Committee  in  this  city,  and,  if  the  printed  copy  be 
correct,  not  a  solitary  name  of  man,  woman  or  child,  is  affixed  to  it. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  Virginia, 
notwithstanding  the  urgent  efforts  made  to  bring  them  up  to  the  peti' 
Honing  point,  are  utterly  opposed  to  the  whole  plan. 

All  the  foregoing  general  statements  derive  great  force  from  the  fol- 
lowing considerations  : 

1st.  Human  nature  is  ever  and  every  where  the  same.  If  history 
teaches  any  thing,  it  teaches  the  corruptibility,  the  depravity  of  human 
nature.  If  observation  teaches  any  thing,  it  teaches  that  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  human  nature  in  mankind  in  our  own  day.  A  state  of 
things  may  yet  arise  in  this  country,  in  which  nothing  may  be  so  in- 
secure as  those  sacred  things,  which  men  have  made  odious  by  attempt- 
ing to  legislate  too  much  concerning  them. 

One  gentleman  tells  us,  I  suppose  in  order  to  allay  apprehension, 
that  "  we  live  in  a  new  and  advanced  stage  of  civilization."  Sir,  the 
greatest  wrongs,  and  the  greatest  abuses  have  been  perpetrated  in 
the  highest  stages  of  civilization.  Was  not  the  last  century  the  most 
civilized  century  in  the  history  of  the  world  ?  Yet  what  did  we  behold 
in  the  two  most  civilized  nations  on  earth  in  that  century  ?  The  wrongs 
of  England  against  India  and  America  were  chiejfy  committed  in  that  cen- 
tury. In  that  century  France  presented  a  spectacle,  which  the  world  had 
never  before  witnessed,  and  I  pray  may  never  witness  again.  Who 
but  God  has  fathomed  human  depravity  ?  Lord  Bacon  in  his  Essay 
on  Superstition  says  :  "Atheism  did  never  perturb  states."  This  was 
true  up  to  his  time,  and  even  until  within  the  last  hundred  years.  Since 
that  time  a  very  large  portion  of  the  distress  and  perplexity  of  nations 
has  been  from  atheism.  All  the  horrors  of  the  French  Revolution,  and 
its  immense  evil  consequences  to  other  nations  sprang  from  atheism. 
The  same  immortal  writer  confirms  also  the  view  given  of  "  civiliza- 
tion." He  says:  "We  see  the  times  inclined  to  atheism,  as  the  time 
of  Augustus  Caesar,  were  civil  times."  Civilization  therefore  may  not 
be  trusted  to  defend  us  against  the  native  wickedness  of  man.  Per- 
haps a  very  great  man  was  never  more  mistaken  than  when  he  said  : 
"  Vice  loses  half  its  evil  by  losing  all  its  grossness."  A  wounded  glad- 
iator, adjusting  himself  to  die  gracefully,  is  to  my  mind  in  some  respects 
an  object  of  greater  abhorrence  than  if  he  were  to  fall  awkwardly,  or 


47 

stagger  and  stumble  like  a  bullock  that  had  received  the  deadly  blow. 

2nd.  Wealth  is  power.  It  is  a  tremendous  power  in  itself.  The 
love  of  it,  like  pride,  is  an  universal  sin,  and  is  the  root  of  all  evil. 
Though  money  itself  is  a  good  thing,  yet  its  abuse  is  most  easy  and 
natural.  Money  is  a  good  servant  but  one  of  the  hardest  masters  men 
or  nations  ever  had.  Let  the  churches  all  become  wealthy  corpora- 
tions, and  is  any  man  so  blind  as  not  to  see  that  they  must  exert  a  vast 
secular  power  ?  Suppose  five  churches  to  be  entitled  each  to  hold  a 
capital  yielding  at  six  percent,  per  annum  2,000  dollars  (total  $10,000.) 
This  is  the  legal  interest  on  $  1 60,000.  Seven  times  that  amount  would 
be  $1,120,000.  This  money  would  be  invested  in  real  estate,  or  loan- 
ed on  bond  and  mortgage.  Now  when  we  remember  that  we  have  the 
highest  authority  for  asserting  that  "  the  borrower  is  servant  to  the 
lender,"  and,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  that  the  tenant  is  servant  to  the 
landlord,  can  we  doubt  the  immense  power,  that  the  corporators  of  such 
vast  church  funds  would  ere  long  exert  in  political  elections,  and  pub- 
lic measures  ?     They  would  become — 

Pdrvis  componere  magna— 
a  kind  of  baronial  Lords  surrounded  by  their  serfs  and  vassals. 

3rd.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  greatest  good  and  the  greatest  evil 
have  alike  flowed  from  sources  apparently  contemptible.  So  true  is 
this  that.some  men  have  even  doubted  whether  the  distinction  between 
great  and  small  events  had  any  foundation  in  the  nature  of  things,  but 
only  in  our  modes  of  conception.  However  we  may  decide  that  point, 
man  certainly  cannot  see  the  end  from  the  beginning.  To  do  that  is 
the  prerogative  of  Omniscience.  "  Behold  what  a  great  forest  a  little 
fire  kindleth."  This  remark  holds  with  tremendous  force  in  some 
kinds  of  legislation.  A  government  may  waste  millions  on  unworthy 
objects,  and  if  their  acts  be  not  regarded  as  precedents,  they  do  but  ex- 
haust the  Treasury,  which  a  year  or  two  of  thrift  will  replenish.  But 
when  a  legislature  adopts  a  new  principle  into  its  policy— a  principle, 
which  IS  to  extend  to  every  corner  of  the  Commonwealth  in  all  coming 
time— It  puts  to  work  an  engine  whose  results  no  finite  mind  can  fore- 
see. ^  An  eloquent  writer  says  :  "  A  new  principle  may  shake  a  conti- 
nent. '  The  enormous  wealth  of  the  corporation  of  Trinity  church, 
New  York,  has,  I  am  told,  all  flowed  from  a  few  acres  of  pasture 
ground. 

4th.  It  is  also  taken  for  granted  that  the  people  of  Virginia,  and  the 
members  of  this  Committee,  believe  that  an  honest  attempt  to  esti- 
mate consequences  is  som^  part. of  the  duty  of  a  Statesman,  and  that 
as  prescience  is  not  granted  to  any  mortal,  it  is  the  duty  of  all.  some- 


48 

times  at  least,  to  learn  from  the  experience  of  past  generations.  I  ac- 
knowledge the  superior  wisdom  and  distinguished  virtue  of  the  gentle- 
men, who  have  urged  the  granting  of  the  chief  prayer  of  this  petition, 
and  as  Mr.  Burke  said  of  Pitt  and  Fox:  "I  should  very  much  prefer 
their  judgment  to  my  own,  if  I  were  not  obliged  by  an  infinitely  over- 
balancing weight  of  authority  to  prefer  the  collected  wisdom  of  agesto 
the  abilities  of  any  two  men  living."  One  of  the  gentlemen  has  said 
that  *'  pne  must  look  far  ahead  *  *  *  to  redeem  his  opposition  [to  the 
petition  before  you,]  from  the  appearance  of  unreasonable  and  capri- 
cious hostility."  Sir,  I  ask  the  Committee  to  "look  far  ahead,"  and 
far  back  also.  "Our  hind  sights  are  better  than  our  foresights."  We 
ought  to  use  some  sagacity — especially  ought  the  past  to  instruct  us. 
If  you  go  into  this  business  it  will  have  lasting  and  ever-growing  con- 
sequences. Unless,  as  the  French  Comedian  said  of  some,  we  are 
"plus  sages  que  les  sages, ^^  we  must  consent  to  learn  from  the  past. 

5th.  In  state  affairs  it  is  not  meet  that  the  officers  of  government 
should  depend  upon  the  voluntary  contributions  of  inditiduals  for 
their  support;  but  on  this  point  and  many  others,  ChrisVs  kingdom 
is  not  of  this  world.  One  of  the  great  laws  of  his  empire  is,  "the 
Lord  loveth  the  cheerful  giver."  Aiiother  is,  "that  they  who  sow  spir- 
itual things  shall  reap  of  their  hearers  carnal  things,"  in  sucl)  measure 
as  their  wants  re^juire.  The  very  life  of  religion,  in  a  vast  majority 
of  cases,  depends  upon  the  contributions  of  the  people  to  the  support 
of  their  pastor  being  absolutely  voluntary.  "  The  act,  establishing  re- 
lio-ious  freedom,"  does,  in  my  judgment,  speak  important  truth  when 
it  mentions  ''the  comfortable  liberty  of  giving  one's  contributions  to 
the  particular  pastor  whose  niorals  he  would  make  his  pattern,  and- 
whose  powers  he  feels  most  persuasive  to  righteousness,"  and  much 
more  to  the  same  effect. 

6th.  By  the  consent  of  a  large  number  of  good  writers  on  the  sub- 
ject of  charities,  testamentary  bequests  to  religious  objects  are  gener- 
ally of  suspicious  character,  especially  when  made  in  extremis. 
"Nothincr  is  so  rash  as  fear,"  and  no  fear  is  so  powerful  as  the  fear  of 
meeting  an  offended  God.  A  dying  man  will  ordinarily  do  any  out- 
ward act,  which  he  believes  will  propitiate  the  favor  of  his  Judge. 
Let  it  once  be  generally  thought  that  a  man  may  buy  a  pardon  for  all 
the  ffuilt  of  a  misspent  life  by  leaving  to  the  church  a  part  or  the  whole 
of  his  sordid  pelf,  perhaps  thereby  disappointing  the  reasonable  ex- 
pectations of  his  poor  and  dutiful  relatives,  and  it  will  not  be  half  a 
century  until  more  than  a  tithe  of  all  the  property  in  this  country  will 
be  in  the  hands  of  ecclesiastics   or  their  tools.     Among  some  in  this 


49  A 

country  it  is  said,  and  I  believe  truly  said,  that  the  doctrine  is  taught 
and  practised  upon,  that  money  has  something  to  do  with  forgiveness 
of  sins,  both  before  and  after  death.  It  is  said  that  the  number  who 
hold  this  doctrine  is  rather  increasing.  Is  this  the  time  to  open  the 
door  and  give  license  to  practices  which  will  grow  out  of  this  doctrine? 
Would  not  a  host  of  evils  follow  such  a  grant?  Would  not  the  rela- 
tives of  dying  men,  who  had  property,  be  more  than  ever  jealous  of 
the  visits  of  clergymen  to  their  rich,  sick  friends,  and  a  thousand  ob- 
structions be  put  in  the  way  of  an  approach  of  the  most  pious  pastor, 
who  only  desired  to  point  the  dying  man  to  the  Lamb  of  God,  but  who 
was  suspected  of  wishing  to  influence  his  last  will?  Suppose  the 
faithful  pastor  visits,  with  the  best  intentions,  his  dying  parishioners, 
and  never  alludes  to  property,  yet  four  out  of  five,  or  even  one  out  of 
five,  shall  be  found  to  have  left  a  will  virtually  disinheriting  a  worthy 
family,  how  must  the  reputation  of  this  minister  suffer?  He  may 
protest  his  innocence,  but  he  cannot  prove  it.  Suspicion  rests  upon 
him  with  all  the  malign  influence  of  positive  proof.  As  a  minister  of 
the  gospel,  and  feehng  that  "a  good  name  is  rather  to  be  chosen  than 
great  riches,"  yea,  that  a  clergyman's  reputation  is  his  capital  in  his 
dealings  with  men,  I  hope  that  no  such  law  as  is  solicited  by  the  peti- 
tioners may  be  passed.  One  gentlemen  has  asked,  am  I  afraid  to  trust 
myself  in  such  circumstances  ?  I  answer.  Yes  !  My  daily  prayer  is 
"Lead  me  not  into  temptation."  I  believe  that  the  "heart  is  deceitful 
above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked."  I  believe  that  this  is  as 
true  of  my  heart  as  of  any  other  man's.  If  I  know  any  spiritual  wis- 
dom, it  is  that  the  strength  of  the  best  of  men  consists  in  a  strong  dis- 
trust of  their  own  ['goodness,  and  a  constant  desire  to  avoid,  rather  thar. 
to  court  trial  of  their  principles. 

What  will  be  the  eff'ect  of  the  passage  of  this  law  on  ecclesiastical 
litigation  in  church  courts,  I  will  not  stop  now  to  inquire.  But  it  may 
be  well  to  inquire  what  will  be  the  probable  effect  in  bringing  the  par- 
ties that  may  arise  before  the  courts  of  law  and  equity,  and  filling  the 
judicial  dockets  with  painful  controversies  between  heirs  at  law  and 
church  corporations,  between  persons  of  different  denominations,  and 
between  those  of  the  same  denomination.  I  have  witnessed  one  of 
these  contests  before  a  court  in  another  State,  and  although  in  the  end 
justice  did  wonderfully  triumph,  yet  I  must  say  that  in  my  opinion  even 
the  party  gaining  in  such  suits  is  always  a  loser,  and  the  cause  of  true 
religion  the  greatest  loser  of  all.  There  is  in  the  Scriptures  a  remark- 
able passage  which  relates  to  Christians  going  to  law.  I  refer  to  1 
Cor.  vi.  1—7. 
4 


60 

I  am  aware  that  there  is  considerable  diversity  among  men  of  re- 
spectable learning  in  the  interpretation  of  this  passage,  but  I  am  willing 
to  give  it  the  most  liberal  construction,  contended  for  by  any  serious 
and  respectable  commentators,  and  yet  I  contend  that  it  does  give  a 
solemn  rebuke  to  all  religionists,  who  shew  a  spirit  of  contention,  and 
of  readiness  to  go  to  law.  Shall  the  church  of  God  then  solicit  and 
obtain  from  the  Legislature  a  "boon,"  as  one  gentleman  calls  it,  which 
will  shut  her  up  to  the  necessity  of  litigation  ?  A  private  person  may 
lawfully  and  honorably  relinquish  his  right  to  property,  but  a  corpora- 
tor, like  an  executor,  must  defend  the  rights  of  those  he  represents. 
Does  it  not  look  like  courting  temptation  to  seek  to  bring  questions  of 
church  property  under  the  laws  and  into  the  courts  ?  Is  it  not  better 
that  churches  and  religious  people  should  continue  to  settle  their  con- 
troversies about  church  property,  as  they  always  have  settled  them  in 
Virginia,  by  a  private  contract,  or  by  a  reference  to  a  few  persons  of 
teputation?  Whatever  others  may  think  of  this  matter,  to  me  it  seems 
to  be  entitled  to  the  greatest  weight. 

Lord  Bacon  has  well  said :  "  He  that  defers  his  charity  until  he  is 
dead,  is,  if  a  man  weighs  it  rightly,  rather  liberal  of  another  man's  than 
of  his  own." 

7th.  Should  the  petition,  as  to  churches,  be  granted,  who  will  be  the 
chief  gainers  of  money  by  it?  I  suppose  none  doubt,  that  the  least 
pure  portions  of  the  church  will  be  the  readiest  to  avail  themselves  of 
it  in  a  dangerous  manner.  The  men  who  pant  for  the  dust  of  the  earth 
on  tlie  heads  of  the  poor,  who  sell  the  poor  for  a  pair  of  shoes,  who 
hold  that  o-ain  is  godliness,  these  will  first  fill  well  their  cofl^ers. 
"VVhether  they  shall  be  my  own  or  another  denomination,  is  to  this  ar- 
gunient,  irrelevant ;  but  that  the  most  corrupt  would  first  introduce 
abuses,  cannot  be  doubted.  I  only  repeat  that  human  nature,  under 
the  best  moral  and  religious  discipline,  has,  when  too  severely  tried,  al- 
ways proved,  itself  a  very  poor  thing. 

8th.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  owe  something  as  a  nation  to  the  other 
nations  of  the  earth.  There  is  a  great  war  of  principle  now  going  on 
between  the  old,  rotten  and  ruinous  principle  of  making  the  church  of 
God  independent  of  the  free-will  offerings  of  the  people,  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  voluntary  principle  on  the  other.  Throughout  the  world 
the  friends  of  liberty  point  to  the  United  States  and  say  :  '"Behold  a 
successful  experiment."  I  myself  admit  that  the  time  is  far  too  short 
to  settle  anything  very  conclusively.  The  inherent  strength  and  right- 
eousness of  the  voluntary  principle  must  as  yet  be  its  chief  commenda- 
tion.    Yet  an  experiment  of  nearly  seventy  years  is  worth  something, 


51 

and  over  masses  of  men  it  has  great  influence.  In  the  name  of  the 
down  trodden  of  other  lands,  in  the  name  of  our  common  humanity,  I  ask 
this  body  to  pause  before  they  wrest  from  the  friends  of  liberty  in  other 
lands,  the  argument  drawn  from  the  example  of  at  least  the  "  Old  Do- 
minion ;"  before  they  spoil  a  pattern  by  which  other  lands  seem  dis- 
posed, in  some  little  degree,  to  model  their  institutions. 

9th.  Nor  ought  it  to  be  forgotten  that  in  our  country,  while  the 
agrarianism  of  some  excites  disgust  and  horror,  aristocratic  princi- 
pks  in  Church  and  State,  have  for  some  years  past,  had  a  most  rapid 
growth,  in  almost  evtry  respect.  A  kind  of  aristocracy  of  talents  is 
to  be  expected  in  a  free  government,  nor  is  it  very  dangei'ous,  for  talents 
are  not  hereditary.  No  man  knows  beforehand  whether  his  son  will  be  a 
wise  man  or  a  fooL  The  aristocracy  of  personal  wealth  is  also  slight- 
ly dangerous  among  us,  for  it  changes  hands  very  often,  and  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  rights  of  primogeniture  makes  it  comparatively  harmless] 
But  the  aristocracy  of  politics  is  a  dangerous  affair.  Just  in  propor- 
tion as  it  gains  strength,  does  it  both  feed  and  provoke  the  agrarian 
spirit.  But  the  •aristocracy  of  the  church  is  the  most  dangerous  of  all. 
It  is  more  deeply  seated.  It  moves  strong^rand  more  hideous  passions. 
In  a  land  where  no  chui'ch  is  by  law  established,  and  where  there  can 
be,  therefore,  no  dissent,  it  ignorantly  and  audaciously  calls  those  out 
of  its  pale,  "  Dissenters."  It  assumes  a  magisterial,  or  what  is  no  less 
offensive,  a  patronising  air.  It  calls  its  party  '■'■  the  ChurchI !  V  It 
denominates  its  dignitaries  by  the  city  or  commonwealth  where  they 
happen  to  reside.  Thus  we  have  the  "  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,"  and 
"the  Bishop. of  Richmond,"  and  the  "Bishop  of  Virginia."  It  speaks  of 
other  churches,  which  outshine  it  in  talents,  piety  and  numbers,  as  be- 
ing at  best  "religious  societies,"  It  refuses  its  houses  of  worship  to 
other  communions,  even  to  preach  a  sermon  over  their  dead.  I  care 
not  where  this  spirit  is  found,  I  abhor  it.  It  is  hideously  anti-Ameri- 
can and  anti-Christian.  When  I  have  found  it  in  a  Presbyterian,  I 
have  abhorred  it  most  of  all.  Well  did  Luther  say  :  "Every  man  is 
born  with  a  pope  in  him."  Let  us  not  then  by  legislation,  foster  and 
fatten  this  pope.  Henry  Sacheverell  is  indeed  dead.  But  his  spirit 
lives,  and  must  be  resisted,  while  men  have  any  regard  for  truth  and 
righteousness. 

•10th.  A  wise  man  will  hardly  believe  that  our  country  is  forever 
hereafter  to  be  free  from  wild  extitement,  leading  to  violence  and 
rancor.  There  is  always,  at  least,  a  war  of  argument  and  of  principle 
between  sin  and  holiness,  good  and  evil.  Time  may  disclose  in  tlie 
bosom  of  this  Commonwealth,  the  fiery  elements  of  a  moral  Vesuvius. 


52 

It  has  already  been  seen  in  a  city  North  of  us,  that  pistols  and  muskets 
can  be  used  at  such  times,  both  to  assault  and  defend  church  property. 
With  every  precaution  such  times  may  come  upon  us,  but  will  not  the 
horror  of  them  be  fearfully  magnified  by  corporate  powers  well  used 
in  hoarding  ?  In  such  times  ecclesiastics  become  too  often  the  fautors 
of  violence.  And  a  wicked,  revengeful  ecclesiastic  is  the  most  cruel  of 
all  excited  men.  Pilate  was  not  so  unrelenting  as  Caiaphas.  If  we 
search  for  the  reason  of  this  extraordinary  depravity,  I  suppose  it  is  to 
be  found, ^r«/,  in  some  supposed  sanctity  of  office,  turned  into  the  fuel 
of  evil  passions,  and,  secondly,  in  the  fact  that  these  men  have  been 
better  instructed,  and  perverted  it  all  to  the  hardening  of  their  hearts 
against  good  impressions.  Many  have  been  worse  men,  worse  citizens, 
and  worse  neighbors  for  being  zealous  but  hypocritical  professors  of 
even  true  religion. 

1 1th.  Should  this  petition  he  granted,  will  it  not,  especially  in  times 
of  high  excitement,  probably  have  a  powerful  influence  over  elections  ? 
Mankind  are  depraved.  Politicians  are  men,  and  "  the  tribe  of  vulgar 
politicians,"  says  one,  "  are  the  lowest  of  our  species.  There  is  no 
trade  so  vile  and  mechanical  as  Government  in  their  hands.  Virtue  is 
not  their  habit.  They  are  out  of  themselves  in  any  course  of  conduct 
recommended  only  by  conscience  and  glory.  A  large,  liberal  and  pro- 
spective view  of  the  interests  of  States  passes  with  them  for  romance ; 
and  the  principles  that  recommend  it  for  the  wanderings  of  a  disordered 
imagination.  The  calculators  compute  them  out  of  their  senses.  The 
jesters  and  buffoons  shame  them  out  of  every  thmg  grand  and  elevated." 
It  is  no  slander  to  assert  that  such  is  the  character  of  many  noisy  men 
in  our  country,  and  that  the  number  seems  to  be  on  the  increase. 
Grant  this  petition,  and  in  fifty  years  religion,  or  the  adjuncts  you  shall 
give  it,  will  determine  thousands  of  votes  in  this  Commonwealth. 
Many  a  vote,  it  is  now  believed,  is  sold  for  a  gill  of  whiskey.  The 
same  vote  might  easily  be  influenced  by  the  terrors  of  a  constable  or 
sheriff  distraining  goods,  or  by  a  threat  of  protest  at  bank.  Shall  such 
an  engine  be  erected  here? 

12th.  The  only  way,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  Legislature  can 
grant  the  petitioners  what  they  ask  will  be  by  delegating  their  power 
to  some  court  or  body  to  act  for  them,.  You  have  not  even  the  names 
of  all  the  societies  and  churches  before  you.  You  must,  therefore, 
pass  a  general  law,  directing  those  who  would  get  your  "boon"  to  ap- 
ply to  some  chancellor,  judge,  court  or  magistrate,  with  an  exhibition 
of  proof  that  the  requirements  of  the  general  law  have  been  complied 
with,  and  then  they  shall  have  their  charter.   Quifacitper  alium,facit 


53 

per  se,  is  a  dangerous  maxim  to  introduce  into  this  business;  a  principle 
for  centuries  denied  in  England  quoad  hoc,  and  to  this  day  regarded 
with  jealousy  under  the  British  Constitution.  See  Angel  and  Ames, 
p.  49. 

13th.  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  our  country  we  are 
making  a  great  experiment  as  to  the  extent  to  which  corporations 
may  be  carried  in  all  matters.  There  is  nothing  equal  to  it  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  We  have  corporations  for  digging  coal,  and  cop- 
per, and  lead,  and  gold  ;  for  making  iron,  and  railroads,  and  blankets  ; 
for  insuring  houses  ;  for  spinning  cotton  and  wool ;  for  almost  every 
thing,  even  for  burying  the  dead.  Indeed,  say  Angel  and  Ames,  "we 
have  in  our  country  an  infinite  number  of  corporations  aggregate  which 
have  no  concern  with  affairs  of  a  municipal  nature.  *  *  *  There 
is  a  great  difference,  in  this  respect,  between  our  own  country  and  the 
country  from  which  we  have  derived  a  great  portion  of  our  laws. 
What  is  done  in  England  by  combination,  unless  it  be  the  management 
of  municipal  concerns,  is  most  generally  done  by  a  combination  of  in- 
dividuals, established  by  mere  articles  of  agreement.  On  the  other 
hand,  what  is  done  here  by  the  co-operation  of  several  persons  is,  in 
the  greater  number  of  instances,  the  result  of  a  consolidation  effected 
by  an  express  act  or  charter  of  incorporation."  See  Preface.  So  that 
it  would  be  wise  for  us  to  watch  this  peculiar  feature  of  our  institu- 
tions as  to  secular  affairs,  before  we  launch  forth  on  this  sea,  as  yet  but 
Mttle  sounded  and  explored  by  us.  I  am  not  here  to  dehver  lectures 
on  secular  corporations.  I  am  free  to  say  I  know  no  valid  objection 
against  them,  if  necessary.  I  have  no  prejudice  against  them.  But  I 
do  say,  that  in  all  respects,  and  as  to  all  institutions,  "  the  price  of  lib- 
erty is  eternal  vigilance." 

14th.  I  also  ask  the  committee  carefully  to  consider  the  legitimate 
ends  of  legislation  in  minute  detail  before  they  enter  upon  the  work 
of  filling  the  land  with  corporations.  If  I  have  utterly  failed  in  ab- 
stract argument,  yet  if  the  committee  think  I  have  history  on  my  side, 
that  is  enough  to  carry  my  point.  I  scarcely  know  a  more  just  obser- 
vation than  that  of  a  great  writer  upon  Government,  who  has  said : 
"  Politics  ought  to  be  adjusted  not  to  human  reasonings,  but  to  human 
nature,  of  which  the  reason  is  but  a  part,  and  by  no  means  the  greatest 
part."  What  were  the  jus  civitatis,  the  jus  commercii,  the  jus  connu- 
bii,  the  jus  hereditatis,  the  jus  suffragii,  and  the  jus  honorum  so  libe- 
rally bestowed  by  the  Romans,  compared  to  the  lavish  bestowment  of 
corporate  powers  asked  for  by  the  petitioners  ?  I  cannot  now  spare 
time  to  trace  all  the  differences  between  them.     One  may  suffice.     All 


4 


54 

these  rights  bestowed  by  the  Romans  tended  to  make  men  in  interest, 
in  sympathy,  in  conscience,  one  with  the  state.  Corporate  rights,  for 
religious  purposes,  all  the  world  over,  for  more  than  1400  years,  have 
led  the  corporators  to  pursue  a  line  of  policy  commonly  adverse  to,  and 
always  diverse  from,  the  state,  unless  the  state  were  a  tyranny,  or  un- 
less the  head  of  the  state  were  the  head  of  the  church,  • 

15th.  The  Committee  will  keep  in  mind  that  all  church  prO])erty 
in  Virginia  is  virtually  held  in  mortmain.  It  is  not  taxed.  There 
is  no  disposition  to  tax  it.  It  pays  nothing  into  the  revenue.  The 
reasons  for  this  pohcy  are,  doubtless,  weighty.  Should  the  chief  prayer 
of  the  petitioners  be  granted,  the  amount  of  church  property  in  Vir- 
ginia, in  a  hundred  years,  will  amount  to  some  millions.  It  is  probable 
it  will  amount  to  many  millions.  Let  those  whose  sworn  duty  it  is 
not  to  legislate  for  religion,  but  rather  to  let  it  alone,  estimate,  in  their 
action  on  this  petition,  what  will  be  the  influence  of  the  withdrawment 
of  so  large  a  portion  of  the.  property  of  the  State  from  all  share  in  the 
support  of  the  public  faith,  and  in  the  common  defence.  "  The  revenue 
is  the  State,"  says  Mr.  Burke. 

16th.  Let  it  never  be  forgotten  that  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from 
the  history  of  all  charities,  foundations,  and  societies,  states  and  do- 
nors profess  to  have  been  actuated,  and  probably  in  creating  themy 
were  actuated  by  motives  of  benevolence.  There  was  at  least  a  spe- 
cious appearance  in  their  original  establishment;  but  "an  ilUfounded 
plausibility  in  great  affairs  is  one  of  the  sorest  evils  under  the  sun." 
If  any  thing  is  to  be  done  in  this  business,  let  us  have  light,  and  much 
of  it.  Let  antiquity,  history,  experience  aiid  argument,  disperse  the 
darkness  in  which  some  appear  to  be.  To  one  in  the  dark  all  colors 
are  alike.  If  I  have  only  darkened  this  "  counsel  by  words  without 
knowledge,"  let  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  prove  me  mistaken.  Let 
them  bring  forth  the  lessons  of  experience  taught  by  any  country  for 
three  centuries  together,  and  shew  us  that  all  I  have  said  is  but  mistake. 

17th.  The  history  of  the  Jews  gives  no  example  to  encourage  this 
grant.  One  of  the  gentlemen  has  had  the  kindness  to  say  that  I  was 
a  greater  lawyer  than  himself.  I  do  not  like  to  be  outdone  in  kind- 
ness, courtesy,  or  a  compliment.  What  less,  therefore,  can  I  say  than 
to  admit  that  he  is  the  greatest  theologian  I  ever  saw,  and  the  greatest 
scholar  the  world  ever  produced?  Something  has  been  said  about  the 
taste  of  holding  such  a  discussion  as  this.  If  there  be  any  bad  taste 
in  it  the  charge  falls  on  the  gentleman  who  ha^  at  last  come  into  it,  on 
his  friend  who  at  first  consented  to  it,  and  on  the  Committee  who  pro- 
posed it,  no  less  than  upon  myself.     In  noticing  the  charge   of  bad 


55 

taste,  for  the  sake  of  dismissing  the  matter  as  unworthy  of  serious 
attention,  I  unfortunately  quoted  the  expression,  "jDe  gustibus  non  est 
disputandum,''  and  the  gentleman  has  not  only  repudiated  the  senti- 
ment, but  has  called  in  question  its  Latinity.  I  had  supposed  up  to 
the  time  of  his  remarks,  that  Blair's  Rhetoric  was  a  book  of  some, 
authority  in  such  matters ;  I  had  also  for  some  time  esteemed  Dr. 
SamuelJohnson  as  more  than  a  mere  sciolist  in  language,  and  I  had 
observed  that  in  his  Life  of  Congreve  he  gave  this  very  sentence  in 
Latin;  but  I  now  retract,  confess  and  bewail  my  error,  and  admit  that 
Dr.  Johnson,  had  he  lived  in  Richmond,  Va.,  in  this  glorious  19th  cen- 
tury, would  never  have  been  guilty  of  such  egregious  error.  I  hope 
however,  that  his. memory  will  not  instantly  become  infamous,  aa  he 
was  a  good  sort  of  man,  and  Avould  if  present,  no  doubt,  make  humble 
acknowledgments. 

I  have  also  admitted  that  the  gentleman  is  a  great  theologian.  Nor 
do  I  mean  to  retract  this  admission;  nevertheless.  Homer  nodn  some- 
times; and  I  suppose  it  is  not  disrespectful  to  say,  that  the  allusion  of 
the  gentleman  to  ancient  Jewish  institutions  in  favor  of  the  prayer  of 
the  petition,  is  perhaps  the  most  unfortunate  that  he  could  have  made. 
The  learned  Rabbi,  David  Levi,  than  whom  the  modern  Jewish  church 
has  had,  I  believe,  no  greater  luminary,  speaking  of  the  support  of  the 
Jewish  Hierarchy,  says: 

Although  "the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  had  no  inheritance  in  the  land," 
yet  "was  it  not  lawful  for  the  priest  or  Levite  to  come  and  demand  the 
tithe  as  a  right,  but  only  to  ask  for  it  as  a  free  gift  of  the  husbandman; 
(who  might  give  it  to  whatsoever  priest  or  Levite  that  he  chose;)  much 
less  had  they  any  power  to  take  it  by  force;  or  to  institute  a  process 
by  law  against  them  for  non-payment." — Rabbi  David  Levi  v. .Paine, 
p.  97. 

"In  this  year,  (Jubilee,)  all  the  estates  that  had  been  sold  were  to  re- 
turn to  their  former  proprietors,  or  to  the  families  to  which  they  origin- 
ally belonged  ;  so  that  no  family  could  be  sunk  and  ruined  and  doomed 
to  pepetual  poverty,  as  the  family  estate  could  not  be  alienated  for  more, 
than  fifty  years." — lb.  p.  101. 

Dr.  Jennings  says  that  this  law  was  famous  among  the  heathen. 
Diodorus  Siculus  (lib.  40)  mentions  it,  and  Aristotle  says,  the  Locrians 
had  a  similar  law.  Why  will  not  the  gentleman  "give  himself  to 
reading?"  I  fear  he  has  never  read  Selden's  immortal  work.  "i}e 
successionibus  in  bona  Defuncti  ad  Leges  Ebrueorwn.^^  If  he  has 
not,  I  should  not  be  surprised^,  for  he  so  little  understands  the  history 
of  even  the  English  church  as  to   talk  about  its  "Theocratic   Pretenr 


56 

sions."*  Sir,  it  never  had,  it  never  made  any  "theocratic  pretensions." 
This  is  mere  grendiloquence.  Theocracy  is  a  government  administer- 
ed by  God,  not  by  a  vicegerent,  nor  by  those  appointed  as  ordinary 
rulers  are.  There  never  was  but  one  theocracy  on  earth;  that  was 
the  ancient  Jewish  Commonwealth. 

Indeed  the  most  casual  reader  of  the  Scriptures  ought  to  have  ob- 
served that  no  man  in  all  that  renowned  Commonwealth  of  the  He- 
brews could  lawfully  alienate  to  prince  or  priest  his  patrimony.  The 
Law  of  Moses  is  express.  See  Numbers  xxxvi.  7,  8,  9,  and  Lev. 
XXV.  13—16,  23. 

This  matter  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  history  of  Ahab  and  Na- 
both.  The  latter  owned  a  small  vine)^ard,  which  the  former  proposed 
to  buy.  Naboth,  fearing  God,  refused  to  alienate  his  inheritance. 
That  woman  Jezebel,  Ahab's  wife,  considered  it  outrageous  that  a  poor 
man  should  refuse  to  conform  to  the  desires  of  the  prince,  and  con- 
trived his  death.  His  life  was  taken;  but  what  was  Ged's  message  to 
Ahab?  "In  the  place  where  dogs  licked  the  blood  of  Naboth,  shall 
dogs  lick  thy  blood — even  thine."  The  whole  history  of  the  transac- 
tion is  given  in  the  21st  chapter  of  1st  Kings,  and  is  well  worthy  of 
a  careful  perusal.  I  therefore  assert  that  no  argument  for  corporations 
having  power  to  take,  hold  and  transmit  real  estate,  acquired  by  devise, 
gift,  or  sale,  can  be  drawn  from  the  Jewish  Commonwealth. 

Another  small  mistake  into  which  our  theologian  has  fallen,  is  that 
he  asserts  that  "Judas  was  a  common  carrier  and  Paul  was  a  trustee."! 
He  expresses  surprise  that  I  should  not  have  known  this  difference 
between  these  two  men. 

Cunningham  in  his  "Law  Dictionary,"  says:  "All  persons  carrying 
goods  for  hire,  as  a  master  and  owners  of  ships,  lightermen,  stage-coach- 
men, &;c.,  come  under  the  denomination  of  common  carriers." 

The  same  writer  in  the  same  work,  describes  a  trustee  as  one  who 
has  "a  right  to  receive  the  profits  of  land,  and  to  dispose  of  the  land 
in  equity.  Holding  the  possession  and  disposing  thereof  at  his  will 
and  pleasure  are  signs  of  trust.  A  trust  is  but  a  new  name  given  to 
an  use,  and  invented  to  defraud  the  statute  of  uses." 

Now,  Sir,  I  assert  that  neither  Judas  nor  Paul  was  a  trustee,  or  a 
common  carrier,  in  the  management  of  funds  committed  to  them,  pro- 
vided the  terms  "trustee"  and  "common  carrier"  are  to  be  used  ac- 
cording to  their  technical  legal  meaning.  Neither  of  them  were  respon- 
sible to  the  law.  The  accounts  of  Judas  were  not  even  audited.  Nor 
have  we  any  reason  for  supposing  Paul's  were.     When  I  said  Judas 

•Printed  Speech,  p.  24. 

tSee  Printed  Speech,  p.  24. 


57 

was  a  trustee  before  Paul,  I  used  the  term  in  its  general  sense,  as  desig- 
nating one  in  whom  confidence  had  been  reposed  by  his  Master  and 
brethren  in  the  management  of  the  little  funds  of  Christ's  family.  I 
never  imagined  that  I  should  be  understood  as  asserting,  as  the  gentle- 
man does,  that  Paul  was  a  trustee  in  a  technical  sense,  in  opposition  to 
a  common  carrier,  as  Judas  was.  I  will  not  agree  to  give  up  my  argu- 
ment, but  I  will  agree  that  the  gentleman  is  the  profoundest  theologian 
and  lawyer  in  the  world  if  he  will  prove  that  Paul  was  a  trustee  and 
Judas  a  common  carrier,  in  a  technical  sense,  as  he  has  asserted.  This 
is  indeed  a  small  matter,  but  in  this  discussion  an  effort  to  degrade 
what  I  esteem  truth  has  been  so  often  resorted  to  that  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  brush  away  some  of  the  cobwebs. 

18th.  Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that  it  is  now  the  settled  doctrine, 
that  the  books  of  a  corporation  are  to  be  considered  as  the  books  of  a 
private  individual,  and  no  inspection  can  be  compelled  by  any  man, 
however  actuated  by  a  public  spirit,  unless  he  have  personal  interest 
hi  its  affairs. 

See  Angel  &  Ames,  p.  535,  for  numerous  cases.  In  5  Cowen,  (N. 
Y.,)  R.  419,  in  the  case  of  the  Utica  Bank  vs.  Hilliard,  it  was  held, 
the  defendant  could  not  compel  the  cashier  of  the  bank  to  produce  the 
tooks  and  papers,  even  by  a  subpaena  duces  tecum,  so  that  the  corpor- 
ations may  laugh  at  men  who  come  and  demand  their  books  for  the 
purpose  of  detecting  abuses. 

19th.  If  the  doctrine  contended  for  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  be 
true,  and  there  would  seem  to  be  some  ground  for  it  by  the  Girard 
Will  Case,  and  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Angel  and  Ames,  p.  116 
and  onward,  it  suggests  the  propriety  of  special  caution  on  the  part 
of  the  Legislature.  That  doctrine  is,  that  the  principle  of  the  law  of 
"charitable  uses,"  or  "pious  uses,"  is  a  part  of  the  common  law.  Let 
this  doctrine  once  obtain  in  the  courts  of  Virginia,  and  the  petitioners 
need  not  come  to  the  Legislature  for  power  to  take  and  hold.  I  men- 
tion the  matter  here  to  show  that  the  people  of  Virginia  will  perhaps 
have  the  subject  brought  home  to  them  in  some  way,  and  I  would 
commend  to  them  the  motto:  ^^Obstn  principiis."  The  Attorney 
General,  in  the  case  of  Hart's  Executors,  (4  Wheaton,)  argues  the 
same  way,  and  quotes  Lord  Chancellor  Macclesfield,  Lord  Keeper 
Henly,  and  Lord  Thurlow,  as  authorities.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr. 
Leigh,  in  the  same  case,  says:  "All  the  elementary  writers  and  com- 
pilers concur  in  deducing  the  jurisdiction  of  the  English  Court  of 
Chancery  over  charitable  bequests,  from  the  statute  of  Elizabeth ; 
tracing  all  the  powers  of  the  court,  as  a  court  of  equity  over  this  sub 


58 

ject,  to  that  source."  Lord  Loughborough,. Lord  Eldon,  and  Sir  W. 
Grant,  ate  among  his  authorities. 

Judge  Marshall  argues  to  the  'same  effect  in  the  decision  in  the  same 
case.  . 

Under  the  opinion  of  Judge  Marshall  we  have  long  had  quiet  and 
freedom  from  contention,  but  as  there  is  evidently  to  be  at  last  an  at- 
tempt to  introduce  a  new  construction  of  the  law  on  this  point,  I  sol- 
emnly ask  the  Committee  to  pause  before  giving  an  existence  to  some 
thousands  of  aggregate  corporations,  which  with  all  the  power  they 
must  have  under  any  construction  "of  the  act  43  Elizabeth,  .must  have 
that  power  vasUy  augmented  by  the  settlement  of  the  law  contrary  to 
the  opinion  of  Judge  Marshall. 

Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  reasons  urged  for  the  change  sought  by 
the  petitioners.' 

L  The  first  is  that  much  property  is  now  last  to  the  church.  To 
this  I  reply, 

1.  It  is  not  lost  to  the  State,  and  the  great  duty  .of  the  Legislature 
IS  performed  when  it  well  provides  that  the  Commonwealth  shall  suf- 
fer no  detriment,  and  that  every  man  shall  have  all  his  personal  and 
hereditary  rights,  and  be  .free  to  worship  God  in  the  manner  most 
agreeable  to  his  own  conscience  without  let  or  hindrance.  If  the  king- 
dom of  God  were  meats  and  drinks,  and  ptomps  and  funds,  the  aid  of 
the  Legislature  might  be  necessary.  But  it  consists  in  righteousness, 
in  peace,  and  in  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  'Surely,  then,  it  can  be  estab- 
lished without  aid  from  the  Legislature. 

I  reply, 

2.  That  it  is  riot  lost  to  the  heirs  at  lawj  who  in  an  overwhelming 
proportion  of  cases,  in  our  country,  need  all  they  are  legally  entided 
to,  for  the  purpose  of  educating  their  children',  supporting  the  infirmi- 
ties of  age,  and' enabling  them  to  reach  that  position  in  society  the 
most  conducive  to  vii'tue,  intelligence  and  usefulness. 

3.  Can  that  money  be  said,  in  general,  to  be  lost  to  the  church, 
which  is  in  the  hands  of  the  heirs  of  pious  men,  who  have  died  and 
left  it,  together  with  their  good  example,  ah  inheritance  to  their  chil- 
dren ?  Could  it,  in  general,  be  in  better  hands?  When  Queen  Eliza- 
beth was  taunted  by. a  foreign  minister  with  the  scantiness  of  her  ex- 
chequer, she  wisely  and  indignantly  replied:  "My  excheqjier  is  in  the 
hearts  of  my  people,"  Could  it  have  been  in  a  better  place?'  And 
can  the  exchequer  of  the  church  be  jn  a  better  place  than  in  the  hearts 
and  hands  of  the  people  of  God  and  their  children  ? . 

4.  It  is  freely  admitted,  that  some  hard  cases  will  probably  arise 


59 

under  any  legislation  wliich  the  wit  of  man  may  invent.  Some  such 
may  have  arisen  in  this  State.  But  what  are  they  all  compared  to  the 
intolerable  evils  of  indiscriminate  acts  of  incorporation?  The  remedy 
proposed  by  the  petitioners,  is  like  taking  the  club  of  Hercules  to 
brusli  a  fly  off  an  infant's  face;  you  will  certainly  bruise,  and  proba' 
bly  kill  it,  in  protecting  it  from  the  winged  insect. 

5.  I  must  again  remind  the  committee,  that  whatever  is  givien  to 
these  corporations,  is  never,  except  by  despotism  or  revolution,  yield- 
ed, be  the  social  or  national  distress  ever  so  great.  To  every  religious 
corporation  may  be  applied  the  fable  of  the  serpent  and  the  file.  It 
always  takes,  and  never  gives.  It  is  like  the  cave  of  Caeus — Aven-: 
tinae  timor  atque  infamia  sylvae — the  soli  of  Vulcan  and  Medona.  The 
tracks  of  the  oxen  are  seen  going  in,  but  never  coming  out. 

This  retention  of  funds  by.  rehgious  corporations  is  a  necessary  re- 
sult. I  know  nothing  more  dishonorable  and  infamous  than  for  a  cor- 
porator to  take  funds  created  for  one  object  and  give  them  to  another 
and  a  diflerent  object.  Funds  bequeathed  to  support  a  religious  society 
can  never,  but  by  baseness  in  the  corporators,'  or  by  a  mob,  or  a  revO- 
lution,'be  used,  even  to  stay  a  famine  or  repel  an  invasion.  This  prin- 
ciple is  as  sound  as  it  is  strong.    Let  the  committee  keep  it  in  mind. 

II.  But  ive  are  told  that  other  States  have  set  us  the  example  of 
passing  laws  similar  to  that  sought  by  the  petitioners,  and  we  are 
asked,  with  an  air  of  triumph.  What  evil  has  resulted  from  their  en- 
actments ?     To  this  I  reply —  ■ 

1,  Few  States  have  passed  laws  so  comprehensive  and  so  indefinite 
as  that  petitioned  for.  Most  of  them  go  no  farther  than  the  act  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  Vn-ginia,  passed  at  the  session  of  1841-2. 

2.  The  examples  cited,  even  if  no  ill  had  resulted,  would  be  useless; 
for  time  has  not  yet  sufficiently  tested  their  operation.  The  age  of  a 
nation  might  fairly  be  put  down  as  averaging  more  than  a  thousand 
years.  How  can  Arkansas,  or  Michigan,  or  even  the  oldest  State  in 
the  Union,  rise  up,  summon  the  world  to  an  audience,  and  pronounce 
that  it  has  wrought  out  a  great  problem  in  politics  ?  Such  an  attempt 
would  look  like  a  child  of  five  years  old  instructing  Methuselah.  The 
profoundest  jurist  that  Virginia  ever  produced  said  it  was  not  possible 
for  any  sagacity  to  foretell  the  operation  of  a  constitution.  Time  alone 
could  test  its  eftects.  The  same  remark  is  equally  applicable  to  a  law 
like  that  asked  for.  The  very  oldest  law  that  I  have  seen  quoted  ni  the 
published  arguments  on  this  subject  was  passed  in  the  year  1813,  less 
than  33  years  ago,  and  not,  as  has  been  said  in  this  debate,  more  than 
50  years  ago.     Gentlemen,  you  must  excuse  me  if  I  excuse  mysel* 


60 

from  attempting  to  show  that  so  brief  an  experience  falls  far  short  of 
demonstrating  any  thing  conclusively  in  favor  of  religious  corporations 
in  our  country. 

3.  I  wish  to  speak  very  respectfully  of  the  laws  and  people  of  other 
States  ;  but  I  shall  speak  truly  and  fearlessly.  I  do,  therefore,  declare, 
that  in  my  soul  I  utterly  detest  many  of  these  laws  and  judicial  deci- 
sions, as  utterly  subversive  of  all  the  great  principles  of  personal  and 
religious  freedom.  I  go  further,  and  declare  that,  in  my  opinion,  there 
is  not  a  man  in  this  hall  who  does  not,  when  informed,  agree  with  me. 
It  is  because  people  will  not  read  that  they  think  every  thing  is  right 
in  our  country.  I  believe  many  of  these  foul  blots  on  the  fair  name  of 
sister  States  would  not  be  there  were  it  not  that  they  have  pursued  a 
line  of  policy  different  from  Virginia  on  the  whole  subject  of  religion. 
I  say,  then,  that  some  of  these  laws,  and  judicial  decisions  under  them, 
do  loudly  warn  us  to  beware  how  we  enter  upon  the  first  steps  towards 
imitating  them. 

NEW    YORK. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  8  Johnson,  and  ask  the  attention  of  the  commit- 
tee to  the  remarkable  case  of  the  People  vs.  Ruggles,  p.  290.  In 
this  case,  Kent,  C.  J.,  still  living,  affirms  a  judgment  given  in  a  lower 
court  by  which  Ruggles,  whose  coarseness  seems  to  have  been  equalled 
only  by  his  folly  and  depravity,  ''was  sentenced  by  the  court  to  be  im- 
prisoned for  three  months,  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  500  dollars."  The 
crime  charged  in  the  indictment  was  "  blasphemy ;"  and  the  Chief 
Justice  argued  that  blasphemy  was,  in  New  York,  an  offence  at  com- 
mon law. 

Are  the  people  of  Virginia  in  favor  of  such  decisions  here  ?  If  blas- 
phemy may  be  pun,ished  by  fine  and  imprisonment,  why  may  not  he- 
resy and  schism  ?  These  often  injure  the  morals  and  destroy  the  peace 
of  communities  to  an  unspeakably  greater  extent  than  any  such  coarse 
language  as  the  poor  sinful  man  Ruggles  used.  If  this  wretched  man 
had  been  let  alone,  or  only  treated  and  exhorted  with  genuine  kind- 
ness, possibly  he  might  have  been  brought  to  repentance.  But  I  will 
venture  to  opine  that  he  left  his  prison  more  a  scoffer  than  he  entered 
it.  I  rejoice  that  in  Virginia  the  courts  cannot  punish  blasphemy,  or 
heresy,  or  schism. 

MARYLAND. 

As  this  appeal  to  other  States  approaches  much  nearer  to  an  appear- 
ance of  argument  than  most  I  have  heard  from  the  friends  of  the  peti- 
tion, allow  me  to  give  some  other  examples.  I  will  take  our  sister 
Maryland  next.     In  her  policy  there  is  much  to  admire  and  much  to 


61 

abhor.     I  take  her,  for  she  seems  to  be  a  favorite  with  the  petitioners. 
Well,  sir,  to  Maryland  we  go. 

In  "Maxcy's  Revised  Laws  of  Maryland,"  vol.  1,  p.  169,  is  found 
the  following  statute.     Should  any  one  be   disposed   to  adopt  proper 
legal  measures  for  prosecuting  a  violator  of  its   provisions,  and  he  be 
proven  guilty,  the  jury  must  convict,  and  the  court  must  sentence  him, 
or  be  guilty  of  perjury.     The  statute  is  in  these  words  :  "  That  if  any 
person  shall  hereafter,  within  this  province,  wittingly,  maliciously  and 
advisedly,  by  writing  or  speaking,  blaspheme  or  curse  God,  or  deny 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  or  shall  deny  the  Holy 
Trinity,  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  or  the  Godhead  of  any  of  the 
Three  Persons,  or  the  Unity  of  the   Godhead,  or  shall  utter  any  pro- 
fane words  concerning  the  Holy  Trinity,  or  any  the  persons  thereof, 
and  shall  be  thereof  convict  by  verdict  or  confession,  he  shall,  for  the 
first  offence,  be  bored  through  the  tongue  and  fined  twenty  pounds 
sterling  to  the  lord  proprietor,  to  be  applied  to  the  use  of  the  county 
where  the  offence  shall  be  committed,  to  be  levied  on  the  offender's 
body,  goods  and  chattels,  lands  or  tenements,  and  in  case  the  said  fine 
cannot  be  levied,  the  offender  to  suffer  six  months  imprisonment  with- 
out bail  or  mainprise  ;  and  that  for  the  second  offence,  the  offender  be- 
ing thereof  convict  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  stigmatized  by  burning  in  the 
forehead  with  the  letter  B,  and  fined  forty  pounds  sterling  to  the  lord 
proprietor,  to  be  applied  and  levied  as  aforesaid,  and  in  case  the  same 
cannot  be  levied,  the  offender  shall  suffer  twelve  months'  imprisonment 
without  bail  or  mainprise  ;  and  that  for  the  third  offence,  the  offender 
being  convict  as  aforesaid,- shall  suffer  death  without  the  benefit  of  cler- 
gy."    See  also  Dorsey's  Laws  of  Maryland,  vol.  1,  pp.  63,  64. 

Maxcy's  Laws  were  published  in  1811.  Of  course  the  whole  sta- 
tute was  in  force  then  ;  yes,  sir,  and  for  years  afterwards.  In  Dorsey's 
Laws  of  Maryland,  vol.  1,  p.  706,  (edition  of  1840,)  1819,  chap.  49, 
it  appears  that  so  much  of  this  statute  as  relates  to  whipping,  burning 
.in  the  forehead,  and  boring  through  the  tongue,  was  repealed;  but  no 
more.  For  the  third  offence  it  is  still  death  without  benefit  of  clergy 
by  the  law  as  revised  in  1819,  for  the  third  time  to  be  guilty  of  blas- 
phemy, as  defined  in  the  act  above.  Let  me  ask  if  Maryland  should 
be  a  guide  to  Virginia?  Do  not  the  gentlemen  wish  that  they  had 
never  cited  Maryland  in  this  controversy  I  I  also  ask  the  committee  to 
read  the  whole  act  of  Assembly  of  Maryland  of  1798,  Dorsey,  vol. 
1,  pp.  359 — 367,  and  say  whether  we  in  Virginia  wish  a  law  fining  a 
man  pretty  heavily  for  refusing  to  "register"  a  man  as  a  member  of  a 


62 

particular  church,  if  he  demands  it,  and  pays  the  fee  of  6  cents  ? 
There  are  other  things  in  the  act  worthy  of  notice.  ' 

The  truth  is  Maryland  was  far  Behind  Virginia  during  the  last  quar- 
ter of  the  last  century  in  her  views  of  religious  freedorh.  In  her  "Dec* 
iaration  of  Rights"  is  abundant  evidence  of  this.  In  section  33  it  is 
provided  that  her  glebe  lands  shall  forever  remain  the  property  of  one 
sect;  and  they  do  still  remain  so  to  this- day,  although  bought  and 
paid  for  by  funds  raised  from  Quakers,  Methodists,  Baptists,  Papists, 
Presbyterians  and  others,  in  common  with  members  of  the  Church  of 
England.  That  section  in  Maxcy.  reads  thus  :  "  That  as  it  is  the  duty 
of  every  man  to  worship  God  in  such  manner  as  he  thinks  most  ac- 
ceptable to  him,  all  persons  professing  the  Christian  religion  are  equally 
entitled  to  protection  in  their  religious  liberty  ;  wherefore,  no  person 
ought  by  any  law  to  be  molested  in  his  person  or  estate  on  account  of 
his  religious  persuasion  or  profession,  or  for  his  religious  practice,  un- 
less under  colour  of  religion  any  man  shall  disturb  the  good  order, 
peace  or  safety  of  the  State,  or  shall  infringe  the  laws  of  morality,  or 
injure  others  in  their  natural,  civil  or  religious  rights  ;  nor  ought  any 
person  to  be  compelled  to  frequent,  or  maintain,  or  contribute,  unless 
on  contract,  to  maintain  any  particular  place  of  worship,  or  any  parti- 
cular ministry ;  yet  the  Legislature  may,  in  their  discretion,  lay  a 
general  and  equal  tax  for  the  sUpport  of  the  Christian  religion,  leaving 
to  each  individual  the  power  of  appointing  the  payment  over  of  the 
money  collected  from  him  to  the  support  of  any  particular  place  of 
worship  or  minister,  or  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  of  his  own  denomi- 
nation, or  the  poor  in  general  of  any  particular  county ;  but  the  churches, 
chapels,  glebes,  and  all  other  property  now  belonging  to  the  Church  of 
England,  ought  to  remain  to  the  Church  of  England  for  ever.  And  all 
acts  of  Assembly  lately  passed  for  collecting  moneys  for  building  or  re  - 
pairing  particular  churches  or  chapels  of  ease,  shall  continue  in  force 
and  be  executed,  unless  the  Legislature  shall  by  act  supersede  or  repeal 
the  same  ;  but  no  county  court  shall  assess  any  quantity  of  tobacco  or 
sum  of  money  hereafter,  on  the  application  of  any  vestrymen  or  church- 
wardens ;  and  every  incumbent  of  the  Church  of  England  who  halh 
remained  in  his  parish  and  performed  his  duty,  shall  be  entitled  to  re- 
ceive the  provision  and  support  established  by  the  act  entitled  'An  act 
for  the  support  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  in  this  pro- 
vince,' till  the  November  court  of  this  present  year,  to  be  held  for  the 
county  in  which  his  parish  shall  lie,  or  partly  lie,  or  for  such  time  as 
he  hath  remained  in  his  parish  and  performed  his  duty." 

In  Dorsey  all  of  this  section  is  found  except  that  relating  to  "  laying 


63 

a  general  and  equal  tax  for  the  support  of  the  Christian  religion/' 
When  that  part  was  stricken  from  the  "Rights"  of  Maryland,  1  do  not 
know.  But  it  was  since  1811,  of  course.  For  any  thing  I  can  find, 
it  may  have  been  very  much  later.  But  the  glebe  lands  still  remain  in 
the  "Church  of  England,"  as  the  Declaration  of  Rights  says  they  shall 
"for  ever."  And  "all  persons  professing  the  Christian  religion 
are  equally  entitled  to  protection."  I  abhor  such  doctrine,  confining 
protection  to  Christians.  Why  did  they  not  say  all  men  are  entitled 
to  equal  protection  ? 

I  give  an  extract  from  the  life  of  William  Paca,  who  was  chosen 
Governor  of  Maryland  in  November,  1782,  and  served  one  year. 
During  this  time  his  biographer  says  : 

"  The  same  paternal  care  which  he  thus  displayed  on  behalf  of  lit- 
erature, he  extended  to  religion  ;  not  the  religion  of  a  sect  or  a  party, 
but  that  general  inculcation  and  diffusion  of  the  great  principles  of  sac- 
red truth  which,  as  they  form  the  happiness  of  individuals,  so  they  se- 
cure the  welfare  of  nations.  Peace  was  scarcely  established,  when,  in 
an  address  to  the  General  Assembly,  he  thus  revived  a  subject  which 
he  justly  deemed  inseparably  connected  with  the  interest  of  the  State. 
'  It  is  far  from  our  intention,'  he  said,  'to  embarrass  your  deliberations 
with  a  variety  of  objects,  but  we  cannot  pass  over  matters  of  so  high 
concernment  as  religion  and  learning.  The  sufferings  of  the  ministers 
of  the  Gospel  of  all  denominations,  during  the  war,  have  been  very 
considerable ;  and  the  perseverance  and  firmness  of  those  who  dis- 
charged their  sacred  functions  under  many  discouraging  circumstances, 
claim  our  acknowledgments  and  thanks.  The  Bill  of  Rights  and  Form 
of  Government  recognize  the  principle  of  public  support  for  the  min- 
isters of  the  Gospel,  and  ascertain  the  mode.  Anxiously  solicitous  for 
the  blessings  of  Government  and  the  Vy'elfare  and  happiness  of  our  citi- 
zens, and  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  powerful  influence  of  religion, 
when  diffused  by  its  respectable  teachers,  we  beg  leave,  most  seriously 
and  warmly,  to  recommend,  among  the  first  objects  of  your  attention 
on  the  return  of  peace,  the  making  of  such  provision  as  the  constitu- 
tion authorizes  and  approves.' 

"This  suggestion  was  met  with  a  corresponding  spirit  by  the  Legis- 
lature, and  some  of  the  sects  at  that  time  most  numerous  in  the  State 
obtained  its  aid.  The  Episcopalians,  especially,  having  met  in  con- 
vention about  that  time,  prepared  and  presented  to  the  Governor  an  ad- 
dress, in  which  they  thanked  him  for  his  '  great  care  and  attention  man- 
ifested for  the  Christian  Church  in  general,  and  her  suffering  clergy  of 
all  denominations  ;  and  prayed  the  continuance  of  his  powerful  inter- 


64 

cession  till  some  law  is  passed  for  their  future  support  and  encourage 
ment,  agreeably  to  the  constitution.'  And  in  tlie  same  liberal  and  cath- 
olic spirit,  Mr.  Paca  answered,  "  that  it  would  give  him  the  highest 
happiness  and  satisfaction,  if  either  in  his  individual  capacity  or  public 
character,  he  could  be  instrumental  in  advancing  the  interests  of  relig- 
ion in  general — alleviating  the  sufferings  of  any  of  her  ministers,  and 
placing  every  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  State  upon  the 
most  equal  and  respectable  footing.' 

"  At  the  meeting  of  the  Convention  of  the  same  church  in  the  fol- 
lowing year,  his  friend,  the  learned  I>r.  Smith,  dedicated  to  him  the 
sermon  which  he  delivered  by  appointment." — Biography  of  the  Sign- 
ers of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  124,  125. 

These  doings  of  Governor  Paca  and  the  Legislature  led,  as  I  am  told, 
to  a  long  and  very  bitter  controversy,  in  which,  at  last,  the  principles 
of  liberty  prevailed. 

Let  me  read  again  from  "The  Declaration  of  Rights"  of  Maryland, 
35.    "That  no  other  test  or  qualification  ought  to  be  required  on  ad- 
mission to  any  office  of  trust  or  profit,  than  such  oath  of  support  and 
fidelity  to  this  State,  and  such  oath  of  office,  as  shall  be  directed  by 
this  Convention,  or  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  and  a  declaration  of 
a  belief  in  the  Christian  religiony     No  man  shall  excel  me  in  praise 
of  what  was  excellent  in  Maryland  during  our  Revolution,  but  I  must 
say  here  is  a  foul  blot.     I  rejoice   that  in  Virginia  different  counsels 
prevailed  in  '76.     In  Maryland  an  odious  religious  test  was  established 
by  a  strange  misnomer,  as  a  "Right."     That  test  remains  in  force  to 
this  day.     A  man  cannot  be  a  lawyer,  a  magistrate,  a  constable,  or  any 
officer,  without  this  test  being  submitted  to  by  him,  unless  he  is  by  birth 
a  Jew,  and  it  was  not  until   1824  that  an  "act  for  the   relief  of  the 
Jews  in  Maryland"  was  passed.     (See  laws  for  that  year,  ch.  205.) 
In  other  words  it  was  48  years  after  the  Declaration  of  American  In- 
dependence before  any  Isrealite  could  hold  an  office  of  profit  or  trust 
in  Maryland.     I  have  no  doubt  that  there  are  many  excellent  people  in 
Maryland  who  abhor  all  these  things,  or  would  abhor  them  if  they 
knew  that  their  code  was  defiled  with  them,  and  they  will  excuse  me 
if  I  say  I  abhor  such  laws  as  these ;  they  are  Draconian. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Nor  will  I  take  for  a  pattern  Pennsylvania,  whose  laws  are,  in  many 
respects,  an  outrage  on  liberty.  I  cannot  dwell  on  the  particulars.  I 
will  give  you  one  legal  decision  in  her  Supreme  Court. 

In  II.  Sergeant  and  Rawle,  Updegraph  vs.  the  Commonwealth,  in 


65 

^fror,  it  is  decided,  that  "  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the  common  law  of 
Pennsylvania;''  that  the  act  of  1700  against  blasphemy,  is  neither 
obsolete  nor  virtually  repealed."  The  whole  case  is  remarkably  in- 
teresting and  instructive.* 

I  myself  have  been  served  with  three  writs  for  a  vote  or  votes  given 
by  me  in  an  unincorporated  General  Assembly.  The  intention  was  to 
fine  and  imprison  me  for  doing  what  I  believed  right.  One  of  these 
writs  was  sued  out  by  Rev.  Philip  Hay,  one  by  Rev.  Miles  P.  Squier, 
and  one  by  a  Judge  (I  think  his  name  was  Brown)  from  Ohio.  It  is 
true  the  attempt  of  these  men  covered  them  with  dishonor ;  nor  did  I 
ever  feel  more  than  pity  at  their  proceedings.  But  what  must  be  the 
state  of  laws,  where  such  things  can  be  done  ? 

MASSACHUSE'^TS. 

In  some  of  the  States,  sir,  they  have  parsons,  that  is  clergymen,  who 
are  sole  corporations.  We  have  none  such  in  Virginia ;  I  trust  we 
never  may.     Angel  and  Ames  say  : 

"Sole  corporations,  it  is  believed,  are  not  common  in  the  United 
States.  In  those  States,  however,  where  the  religious  establishment  of 
the  Church  of  England  was  adopted,  when  they  were  colonies,  together  ^ 
with  the  common  law  on  that  subject,  the  minister  of  the  parish  was 
seised  of  the  freehold,  as  persona  ecclesise,  in  the  same  manner  as  in 
England  ;  and  the  right  of  his  successors  to  the  freehold  being  thus  es- 
tablished was  not  destroyed  by  the  abolition  of  the  regal  Government, 
nor  can  it  be  divested  even  by  an  act  of  the  State  Legislature.  This 
was  held  by  Mr.  J.  Story,  in  giving  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  St&tes,  in  the  case  last  referred  to." 

"  We  are  not  awafe,"  says  the  learned  Chief  Justice  of  Massachu- 
setts, "  that  there  is  any  instance  of  a  sole  corporation  in  this  Common- 
W'ealth,  except  that  of  a  person  who  may  be  seised  of  parsonage  lands, 
to  hold  to  him  and  his  successors  in  the  sam_e  office,  in  right  of  his  par- 
ish." 

I  remero_bcr,  also,  the  flagrant  and  atrocious  perversion  of  funds  in 
the  Ilollis  professorship  in  Harvard  University,  in  the  same  State.  I 
also  remember  that  many  houses  of  worship,  and  much  other  church 
property,  created  by  Orthodox  men,  have  been  decreed  by  the  courts  of 
Massachusetts  to  Unitarians  who  have  long  carried  on  a  predatory  war 
against  the  Orthodox,     I  also  ask  the  committee  to  examine  (7.  Pick- 

*  So  mucli  is  charter-making  multiplied  in  Pennsylvania,  that  now  (1847)  it  is 

devolved  on  tlie  Supreme  Court.     "  Sic  transit  judex  in  legislator  em.'''     Is  liberty,  is 

property  safe  when  ihe  legislative  and  judicial  powers  of  Government  are  thus  blertd- 

•ed  ?     If  so,  our  fathers  were  great  ninnies  in  insisting  so  much  on  their  separation. 

5 


66 

ering  (Mass.)  R.,  especially  pp.  329,  330 ;  and  12  Pickering  R.,  espe^ 
daily  pp  262,  263,)  the  case  of"  Murdock  vs.  Philips'  Academy."  It 
will  give  them  a  sweet  foretaste  of  what  we  shall  see  in  our  courts  in 
Virginia,  if  we  go  into  this  wholesale,  indiscriminate  chartering  of  re- 
ligious societies. 

I  cannot,  therefore,  take  Massachusetts  as  a  guide  in  legislation  in 
religion.  I  detest  many  of  its  legal  decisions  and  the  spirit  of  several 
of  its  laws  on  religion.  I  could  easily  travel  the  round  of  the  old  States 
appealed  to,  and  show  you  enough  to  alarm  any  wise  man  on  this  sub- 
ject. But  I  have  detained  you  too  long  already.  What  becomes  now 
of  the  declaration  of  the  gentleman,  "  that  in  one  and  all  of  these  States 
civil  liberty  is  as  secure  as  among  us  ?" 

III.  It  is  said  that  the  Legislature  can  affix  safe  and  adequate  lim- 
itations to  the  proposed  corporations. 

To  this  I  reply,  that  limitations  must  refer  either  to  the  duration  of 
corporations,  the  number  of  them,  or  the  amount  of  property  which 
they  can  hold. 

1.  I  suppose  no  limitation  of  time  is  desired  by  the  petitioners.  To 
say  that  the  powers  sought  by  them  and  granted  by  you  should  cease 
and  determine  in  20  or  50  years,  would  be  fatal  to  their  wishes.  These 
religious  corporations  are  very  different  things  from  the  ordinary  cor- 
porations of  the  country,  in  which  the  charter  may  be  surrendered,  and 
a  dividend  of  the  effects  be  made  among  the  stockholders  at  any  time 
without  embarrassment.  In  South  Carolina  church  corporations  are 
limited  to  14  years.     AVould  this  please  the  petitioners? 

2.  If  there  be  a  general  law  there  can  be  no  limit  in  the  law  as  to 
the  number  of  corporations.  The  Legislature  cannot  say  how  many 
each  denomination  shall  have.  This  would  be  invidious  ;  and  if  they 
were  to  attempt  a  restriction  it  would  be  found  fruitless.  Surely  the 
Legislature  is  not  prepared  to  say  that  churches  hereafter  formed  shall 
not  have  equal  rights  with  those  already  formed. 

3.  No  limit,  as  to  the  amount  of  property,  will  be  found  practicable. 
Let  me  state  a  case.  A  man  dies  leaving  property  to  a  church  corpo- 
ration, the  annual  avails  of  wliich  reach  the  maximum  permitted  by 
law.  Will  the  Legislature  say  to  the  corporators,  if  you  manage  that 
property  well  and  cause  it  to  yield  one  dollar  more  than  it  does  yield 
by  bad  management  you  shall  forfeit  the  whole  ?  Besides,  it  would  be 
very  easy,  in  many  cases,  to  create  a  new  society,  or  congregation,  to 
hold  any  surplus  above  the  maximum  fixed  by  the  law.  Would  it  be 
wise  to  drive  men  to  these  miserable,  evasive  shifts,  or  to  shut  them  up, 
by  a  kind  of  necessity,  to  an  unskilful  management  of  their  funds  ?    Is 


67 

U  not  to  the  intefest  of  the  State  that  all  tlie  property  in  it  be  rendered 
as  productive  as  possible  I 

4.  Almost  innumerable  cases  can  be  cited  to  show  that  every  corpo* 
i-ation  aggregate  has,  incidentally,  at  common  law,  a  right  to  take,  hold> 
and  transmit  in  succession  property  lo  an  unlimited  extent  or  amount. 
See  Angel  and  Ames  on  Cor.,  p.  87. 

5.  It  is  worthy  of  inquiry,  who,  in  case  of  forfeiture,  shall  take  the 
forfeited  property.  Shall  the  Commonwealth?  I  suppose  a  moderate 
degree  of  political  information  would  convince  any  man,  that  it  is  highly 
dangerous  to  personal  and  political  liberty,  that  the  State  or  govern- 
ment should  become  proprietor  of  a  large  portion  of  the  soil.  History 
feo  declares.  On  this  point  Americans  ave  extremely  jealous,  and  re- 
quire both  the  State  and  National  Legislatures,  to  offer  their  lands  at 
a  very  low  price.  Shall  the  forfeited  property  take  the  direction  of 
fines  and  escheats,  and  go  into  the  literary  fund  of  Virginia?  This, 
perhaps,  might  please  some  of  the  inconsiderate-friends  of  education. 
But  I  ask  them  to  inquire,  whether  this  would  not  be  buying  education 
at  too  dear  a  price. 

IV.  Of  the  visitatorial  power,  I  ask  the  Committee  to  read  and  examine 
the  whole  of  Chapter  XIX.  of  Angel  and  Ames,  and  then  decide  two 
questions : 

1 .  Whether  this  power,  unless  a  visiter  be  named  in  the  charter,  is 
of  any  practical  force  in  our  country  ? 

2.  If  it  be  practicable,  what  would  any  man's  character  be  worth  by 
the  time  he  had  visited  ten  religious  corporations  in  or  out  of  his  own 
denomination,  and  exposed  their  abuses,  and  the  authors  of  th«m? 

As  to  the  power  of  visitation  exerting  a  restraining  influence,  one  of 
the  most  eminent  judges  of  Virginia,  recently  said  in  conversation, 
"that  it  was  all  moonshine."  Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  power 
in  England  may  be  exerted  very  ditferently  from  what  it  can  be  amongst 
US.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  the  views  of  this  subject 
presented  in  1  Blackstone,  p.  480.  I  know,  indeed,  that  the  donor 
while  living  is  in  some  sense  charged  with  a  visitatorial  pov/er,  and 
that  the  heirs  at  law  have  the  same  right;  but  can  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side,  wilh  ail  their  vast  attainments  produce  a  single  instance  in 
which  either  the  donor  or  his  heirs,  have  exercised  this  pov/er,  in  a 
controlling  manner,  in  any  State  of  our  Union  ? 

One  gendeman  told  us,  that  if  a  charity  should  be  abused,  there 
would  be  no  lack  of  informers.  Does  any  man  seriously  believe  that 
voluntary  information  could  be  legally  given  by  the  best  man  in  the 
State,  as  to  a  dozen  institutions  of  this  kind,  thus  detecting  abuses,  and 


Jie  not  find  his  character  riddled  by  the  darts  of  envy,  slander  ov  suspi" 
cion,  before  he  had  half  done  his  work?  Some  man  may  believe  this, 
but  surely  his  powers  of  credulity  must  be  enormous. 

V.  One  of  the  gentlemen  has  submitted  a  remarkable  proposition ; 
it  is,  that  the  Presbyterians,  at  my  instance,  shall  be  excepted  out  of 
the  proposed  law,  in  order  that  their  churches  may  not  be  corrupted. 
To  this  I  ansv/er  : 

1.  It  seems,  then,  that  the  gentleman  would  be  M'illing  to  rec(?ive  by 
•law,  what  he  esteems  a  "boon,"  or  a  '"right,"  and  have  it  appear  on 

the  very  face  of  the  law,  that  another. denomination  cannot  avail  itself 
of  the  same  boon  or  right.     How  consistent  this  is  with  the  language 
of  the  petition  I  leave  the  Committee  to  juclge.     But, 

2.  I  have  no  authority  either  to  ask  or  refuse  any  thing  for  my  own 
denomination  or  any  other.  At  the  opening  of  this  debate,  I  explicitly 
informed  the  Committee,  that  I  acted  as  a  private  person,  representing 
no  one. 

3.  Presbyterians  wish  neither  to  ride  nor  to  be  ridden.  They  wish- 
to  remain  on  a  perfect  equality  with  all  their  fellow-citizens..  They 
seek  no  legal  ascendancy  for  themselves  over  others ;  they  are  determ- 
ined that  others  shall  have  no  legal  ascendancy  over  them. 

4.  Should  I  accede  to  the  gentleman's  proposition,'  and  should  the 
Legislature  pass  a  law  of  the  kind  he  proposes,  the  very  first  judge 
before  whom  the  lav^/^  should  judicially  come,  would  righteously  and 
promptly  pronounce  it  unconstitutional,  or  would  violate  his  oath  of 
office.     I  think,  therefore,  this  proposal  is  out  of  the  question. 

VI.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,. that  the  Legislature  can  dissolve  these 
corporations  if  they  become  dangerpus.  If  it  be  so,  it  ought  to  be  re-- 
membered,  that  even  under  the  British  Constitution,  where  Parliament 
is-  said  to  be  omnipotent,  there  have  been  to  this  day  but  two  occasions 
on  which  that  power  has  been  exercised,  viz:  in  the  time  of  Edward 
II.  and  of  Henry  VIII.;  the  first,  in  the  suppression  of  the  order  of 
Templars;  the  second,  in  the  suppression  of  religious  houses.  The 
very  highest  judicial  authority  has  repeatedly  decided,  that  to  dissolve 
a  corporation  is  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Slates, 
which  forbids  the  passage  of  any  "  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts;"  and  that  the  Legislature  cannot rrepeal, 
impair,  or  alter  a  charter,  against  the  consent,  or  without  the  default,  of 
the  corporation,  judicially  ascertained  and  declared.  See  the  following 
cases:  Dartmouth  College  i;s.  Woodward,  4  V7heat.  R.  518;  Fletcher 
vs.  Peck,  6  Cranch,  88 ;  The  State  of  New  Jersey  vs.  Wilson,  7 
Cranch,  R.    164;  Terrett  vs.   Taylor,   9   Cranch,  43;  The   town  of 


€9 

Pawlet  vs.  Clark,  9  Cranch,202;  Wales  vs.  Stetson,  2  Mass.  R.  143; 
Enfield  Toll  Bridge  Co,  vs.  Connecticut  River  Co.,  7  Conn,  R.  53, 
per  Daggett ;  J.  McLaren  vs.  Pennington,  1  Paige,  (N.  Y.)  Chan.  R| 
107,  per  Walworth,  Chan.;  2  Kent,  Comm.  245,  246;  Green  vs. 
Biddle,  8  Wheat.  R.  1.  The  Society  for  establishing  useful  Manu- 
factures vs.  the  Morris  Canal  and  Banking  Co.,  cited  Halst.  Dig.  93. 
According  'to  the  best  authority,  (2  Kent,  Comm.  247,  and  Angel 
and  Ames,  128,  667,)  in  case  of  the  dissolution  of  a  corporation,  the 
real  csUtte  would  indeed  revert  to  the  donor  or  his  heirs,  if  they  could 
be  found;  but  the  personal  property  would  become  the  property  of  the 
people,  in  other  words,  tlie  proptrtj-  of  the  Commonwealth.  But  even 
real  estate  would  in  most  cases  have  b'een  purchased  in  some  way  by 
funds  variously  contributed.  And  we  have  the  highest  legal  authority 
for  sajing  that  "private' subscriptions  to  a  public  institution  are  consid- 
ered in  the  light  of  a  dedication  to  the  public.  They  merge  in  it,  and 
are  not  susceptible  of  reclamation;"  and  that  if  any  would  reclaim 
money  thiss  subscribed,  "it  is  necessary  that  each  claimant  should  be 
a  party,  and  distinctly  trace  his  title  from  the  first  subscriber  down  to 
himself,  ii  even  a  resulting  trust  could  be  raised  in  favor  of  those  from 
whora  the  purchase  money  moved."* 

CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

,  I  hold  in  ray  hand  a  letter  relating  in  good  part  to  the  mattei's  before 
us.  I  beg  leave  to  read  it.  It  is  from  a  subject  of  the  British  crown, 
a  gentleman  most  reputably  connected,  both  at  home  and  in  this  coun- 
try, a  gentleman  very  favorably  known  in  the  best  circles  in  this  State, 
and  who  has  long  held  both  my  respect  and  my  esteeia.    It  reads  thus : 

Richmond,  January  12th,  1846. 
Rev'd.  and  Dear  Sir  : 

It  was  with  deep  regret  I  heard  to-da}-'  that  you  had,  in  a  speech  de- 
livered before  the  Committee  of  the  Courts  of  Justice,  reflected  very 
strongly  upon  the  character  of  the  Established  Clergy  in  England — 
that,  amongst  other  things,  you  denominated  them  as  «teeple-chasers 
and  sporting  parsons.  I  was  likewise  informed  that  in  animadverting 
upon  the  abuses  of  the  Church  Establishment  you  alluded  to  the  enor- 
mous wealthr  of  the  clergy,  and,  in  support  of  your  assertions,  that  you 
read  a  statement  from  an  a:rtiele  in  the  Eclectic  Review.  ' 

I  am  very  sorry  that  I  did  not  hear  your  speech,  'as  I  certainly,  how- 
ever feebly,  should,  with  permission  of  the  Com.mittee,  have  endeavor- 
<?d  to  vindicate  the  Clergy  of  England  (than  whom  a  more  excellent  and 

*Chancdior  Tucker  in  case  of  Selden  et  al.,  &c- 


70 

pious  body  is  not,  in  my  opinion,  to  be  found  in  the  world,)  before  the 
Committee — and  in  doing  so  I  should  have  informed  the  Committee 
that  tlie  Eclectic  Review  was  instituted  for  the  avowed  object  of  "t/jn- 
ting  dawn''''  the  Established  Church  in  England,  a  foct  of  which  I 
doubt  not  you  are  perfectly  aware,  and  consequently  a  very  prejudiced 
and  questionable  witness  against  it.  I  should  further  have  informed 
the  Committee  that  the  average  incomes  of  the  Clergy  of  England  did 
not  exceed  £'209  per  annum  :  That  by  the  Church  Temporalities  Act 
passed  in  1834,  the  large  incomes  before  enjoyed  by  the  superior  or- 
ders of  clergy,  such  as  Bishops,  Deans  and  Prebendiaries  had  been  re- 
duced to  increase  the  stipends  of  the  inferior  orders  in  the  Establish- 
ment— and  that  by  the  "  Church  Discipline  Act,"  commonly  called  the 
Bishop  of  London's  Act,  any  Clergyman  so  oblivious  of  his  sacred  of- 
fice as  to  attend  races,  steeple-chases,  or  the  like,  would  be  rendered 
liable,  for  the  first  oifence,  to  suspension  for  two  years,  and  for  a  repe- 
tition of  the  offence,  to  the  loss  of  his  gown. 

I  would  then  have  referred  to  the  favorable  testimony  borne  by  the 
Bishop  of  Virginia,  (an  eye-witness,)  a  man  eminent  for  his  piety  and 
virtue,  to  the  conduct  of  the  English  Clergy. 

I  do  not  presume  to  dictate  to  you  what  you  ought  to  think  or  say 
of  the  Clergy  of  England,  or  of  the  Church  Establishment — but  I  trust 
you  will  pardon  me  for  lamenting  that  you  should  have  lent  the  sanc- 
tion of  your  high  authority  to  the  abuse  of  a  church  to  which  I  am 
much  endeared,  and  to  which,  in  my  liumble  opinion,  tlie  whole  of 
Christendom  owe  a  debt  which  they  will  never  be  able  to  repay. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respef't  and  esteem. 

Your  obedient  humble  servant, 

A.    F.    D.    GiFFORD. 

To  Rev.  Dr.  Plumer,  &c.,  &c. 

In  regard  to  the  foregoing  letUn-,  I  observe  that  it  was  written  at  my 
instance  and  request,  after  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Gilford^  Finding 
that  gentleman  laboring  under  misapprehensions  as  to  the  course  of  my 
remarks  hitherto,  I  desired  an  opportunity  of  publicly  correcting  any 
misapprehensions,  under  which  he  or  any  portion  of  the  public  might 
labor.  I  assert  that  I  have  not  abused  tlie  English  Church,  and  I  refer 
to  the  Committee  for  the  truth  of  this  remark. 

Concerning  the  Eclectic  Review,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  it  is  sup- 
ported by  a  large  body  of  as  intelligent  and  loyal  Englishmen  as  the 
British  Empire  affords ;  and  that  John  Foster  was  long  a  large  con- 
tributor to  its  pages.  Surely  the  editors  of  that  Review  can  hardly  be 
believed  to  be  so  depraved  as  to  publish  deliberate  falsehoods  about 


71 

matters  concerning  which  at  least  one-half  of  the  English  people  must 
be  supposed  to  have  correct  information,  or  concerning  which  there  is 
record  evidence  to  expose  any  want  of  veracity. 

As  to  "the  Church  Discipline  Act"  referred  to  by  Mr.  G.,  1  would 
observe  that  the  very  passage  of  such  an  act  by  the  British  Parliament, 
presupposes  a  strong  necessity  for  it,  and  argues  a  more  extensive  and 
deep  corruption  of  manners  among  the  English  Clergy  than  any  thing 
I  have  said  on  this  occasion. 

It  is  not  the  custom  of  Legislatures,  and  particularly  of  the  British 
Parliament,  to  spend  their  time  in  making  laAvs  that  are  likely  to  apply 
to  no  case.  Bishop  Meade  himself,  as  already  quoted,  argues  thus 
in  another  case  in  relation  to  this  colony.  Legislation  purely  m  thesi 
is  practised  only  by  foolish  and  idle  men.  And  here,  let  mie  ask,  what 
sort  of  Church  Discipline  is  likely  to  obtain  where  such  men  as  Bulvver 
establish  the  canons  of  morality  ? 

I  would  further  observe  that  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  take  Bishop 
Meade,  chosen  by  Mr.  G.  himself,  as  a  witness  in  this  case.  On  pp. 
13,  20,  22,  of  his  address  to  the  Convention  of  his  Diocese,  May,  1845, 
I  find  the  following  :  Speaking  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  England  be- 
fore 1776,  he  calls  her  the  "Mother  Church,  over  whose  defects  there 
was  so  much  cause  to  mourn."  He  quotes  with  approbation  the  up- 
braiding words  of  one  in  Virginia,  to  the  Clergy  of  England,  thus  :  "Do 
they  not  either  wilfully  hide  their  talents,  or  keep  themselves  at  home 
for  fear  of  losing  a  few  pleasures  ?"  Again  :  "  Though  not  so  deeply 
corrupted  as  the  Church  of  Virginia,  yet  was  the  English  Church  most 
sadly  defective,  both  in  doctrine  and  practice."  He  then  speaks  of  a 
k\v  eminent  men,  whom  God  raised  up  in  England,  "  to  bear  testimo- 
ny against  the  jejune  morality  of  the  pulpit,  and  to  condemn,  as  well 
by  their  writings  as  example,  the  worldliness  both  of  clergy  and  peo- 
ple." But  among  those  named  as  thus  raised  up,  I  do  not  see  the 
name  of  one,  whom  I  suppose  to  have  been  a  bishop,  though  he  names 
three  laymen  and  one  woman,  Mrs.  Moore,  a  name  indeed,  which  the 
good  must  venerate.  He  then  speaks  of  "some  in  the  Episcopal 
church  ot  England  and  America"  who  "have  embraced  exploded  er- 
rors,  and  subjected  the  whole  church  to  the  charge  of  retracing  its  steps 
towards  apostate  Rome." 

Now,  Sir,  weigh  these  things  fairly,  and  call  to  mind  the  character 
given  by  Bishop  Meade  of  the  Foreign  Missionaries  sent  out  by  the 
Bishop  of  London  to  Virginia,  during  our  colonial  existence,  and  if 
they  do  not  contain  far  more  severe  reflections  on  the  English  church 


72 

than  any  thing  I  have  said,  I  will  make  any  amende  that  duty   may 

require. 

Bishop  Meade  is  Mr.  G.'s  chosen  witness.     Mr.  G.  would  have 

been  more  wise  to  have  chosen  me.     I  at  least  have  not  testified  so 

terribly. 

But,  Sir,  I  must  choose  my  witness  in  my  turn.     He  shall  be  both 

competent  and  credible. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  "  The  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  by 
Thomas  Vowler  Short,  D.  D.  Bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man."  I  suppose 
his  testimony  against  the  state  of  tilings  in  England -is  entitled  to  some 
weight.  On  pag'e  308,  speaking  of  the  connection  between  Church 
and  State,  he  says:  It  " has  fettered  the  church  with  many  evils.  It 
has  justly  authorized  the  state  interfering  with  clerical  appointments, 
and,  from  the  value  of  the  revenues,  which  are  attached  to  them,  has 
unfortunately  induced  those  at  whose  disposal  they  are  placed  to  select 
their  friends,  who  are  not  always  the  proper  persons  to  fill  the  situa- 
tions ;  while  it  has  induced  the  clergy  to  seek  for  the  preferments. 
The  poverty  of  many  of  our  spiritual  cures  prevents  them,  humanly 
speaking,  from  being  properly  taken  care  of;  and  God  knows  whether 
the  wealth  of  others  does  not  tend  to  diffuse  a  want  of  spirituality 
through  the  church."  Pretty  strono"  language  this  for  an  English 
Bishop — ^language  implying  fully  as  much  as  any  thing  I  have  said. 
But  he  uses  stronger  still :  "  It  has  induced  the  state,  from  mistaken 
kindness,  to  connect  civil  penalties  with  ecclesiastical  censures,  and  by 
altering  the  nature  of  such  control,  by  diverting  it  from  the  consciences 
to  the  present  fears  of  the  sinner,  has  done  away  with  the  utility  of 
them  altogether."  Worse  and  worse  for  a  bishop  to  say.  Sir,  what 
must  be  the  state  of  a  church  in  which  ecclesiastical  censures  have  no 
utility  whatever  !     But  he  proceeds  : 

"It  has  put  a  stop  in  a  great  measure  to  the  exercise  of  discipline 
over  the  members  of  the  church  itself."  Again  :  "  There  are  many 
offending  memhers  in  it,  for  the  correction  and  cutting  off  of  whom,  no 
steps  are,  or  perhaps  can  be,  taken." 

This  is  the  testimony  of  a  man  who  thinks  "  that  the  establishment 
contains  perhaps  as  large  a  number  of  the  real  servants  of  God  as  any 
other  body  of  men  of  the  sams  size,"  §  818,  and  who  says  that  "In 
his  parish  he  [Richard  Baxter]  did  that,  which  I  believe  the  pastor  is 
directed  in  Holy  Scripture  not  to  do  ;  he  tried  to  draw  aij  outward  line 
between  the  godly  and  ungodly;"  and  who  thinks  that  "  the  private 
,  admonitions  of  a  clergyman  and  the  occasional  interference  of  the  civil 
magistrate  [in  church  discipline]  may  promote  the  cause  of  religion 


73 

witli  grea.er  advantage  "  than  such  church  discipline  as  Baxter  used. 
§  613.  Ill  note  7,  p.  225,  the  Bishop  says  explicitly  "that  ecclesiasti- 
cal dis-^ipline  among  the  clergy  has  been  destroyed  ;"  and  he  undertakes 
to  tell  how ;  'l  only  add  that  Dr.  Short  has  been  made  a  Bishop  since 
he  wrote  this  History.  Ifof  course  was  not  considered  a  scandalous 
pubhcation,  but  at  least  sufficiendy  mild  towards  the  estnb'lishment. 

I  have  made  these  citations  not  simply  because  they  speak  the  truth 
as  I  beUeve,  but  because  I  wished  to  show  the  Committee  that  I  had 
been  modetate  and  guarded  in  my  statements  respecting"  the  English 
Establishment,  I  rejoice,  and  no  man  shall  hinder  me  from  rejoicing, 
that  among  the  eleven  thousand  of  tlie  English  Clergy  there  are  many 
who  manifest  a  christ-ian  temper  and  are  valiant  for  the  truth. "  But 
this  is  despite  the  connection  between  church  and  state.  May  the  num- 
ber of  sucli  increase  many  fold. 

RELIGION  IN  VIRGINIA  ADVANCING. 

Allow  me  to  observe,  that,  if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  true  religion 
has  made  more  progress  in  this  Commonwealth  the  last  50  years,  than 
in  all  iis  previous  history.  I  think  the  address  of  Bishop  Meade  to 
the  Convention  of  his  Diocese  clearly  maintains  the  same  truth  as  to 
the  Episcopal  Church.  He  dates  all  its  cheering  progress-to  the  last 
33  years  in  his  own  church.  Be  it  remembered  that  .all  this  progress 
has  been  made  under  the  policy  of  the  government,  respecting  religion, 
which' it  is  now  proposed  to  alter.  Indeed  throughout  the  United  States 
a  degree  of  religious  and  moral  influence  has  been  reached  whi^ih  has 
attracted  the  attention,  if  not  the  admiration,  of  every  candid  foreigner 
visiting  our  shores.  I  have  before  me  a  work  which  is,  in  some  re- 
spects, the  most  remarkable  production  of  the  age.  It  is  De  Tocque- 
ville's  "Democracy  in  Amorica."     He  says  (vol  2,  pp.27,  28) : 

"  The  American  ministers  of  the  Gospel  do  not  attempt  to  draw  or 
to  fix  all  the  thoughts  of  man  upon  the  life  to  come ;  they  are  willing 
to  surrender  a  portion  of  his  heart  to  the  cares  of  the  present,  seeming 
to  consider  the  goods  of  this  world  as  important,  although  secondary, 
objects.  If  they  take  nojijjart  themselves  in  productive  labor,  they  are 
at  least  interestad  in  its  progression,  and  ready  to  applaud  its  results  ; 
and  while  tliey^never  cease  to  point  to  the  other  world  as  the  great  ob- 
ject of  the  hopes  and  fears  of  the  believer,  they  do  not  forbid  him 
honestly  to  court  prosperity  in  this.  Far  from  attempting  to  show  that 
these  tilings  are  distinct  and  contrary  to  one  another,  they  study  rather 
to  find  out  on  what  point  they  are  most  nearly  and  closely  coimected. 

"All  the  American  clergy  know  and  respect  the  inlQllectual  suprem- 


74 

acy  exercised  by  the  majority  ;  they  never  sustain  any  but  necessary 
conflicts  with  it.  They  take  no  share  in  the  altercations  of  parties,  but 
they  readily  adopt  the  general  opinions  of  their  country  and  their  age ; 
and  they  allow  themselves  to  be  borne  away  without  opposition  in  the 
current  of  feeling  and  opinion  by  which  every  thing  around  them  is 
carried  along.  They  endeavor  to  amend  their  contemporaries,  but  they 
do  not  quit  fellowship  with  them.  Public  opinion  is,  therefore,  never 
hostile  to  them,  it  rather  supports  and  protects  them ;  and  their  belief 
owes  its  authority,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  strength  which  is  its  own, 
and  to  that  which  they  borrow  from  the  opinions  of  the  majority." 

"In  the  United  States,  on  the  seventh  day  of  every  week  the  trading 
and  working  life  of  the  nation  seems  suspended;  all  noises  cease;  a  " 
deep  tranquility,  say  rather  the  solemn  calm  of  meditation  succeeds  the 
turmoil  of  the  week,  and  the  soul  resumes  possession  and  contempla- 
tion of  itself.  Upon  this  day  the  marts  of  traffic  are  deserted;  every 
member  of  the  comniunity,  accompanied  by  his  children,  goes  to  church, 
where  he  listens  to  strange  language,  which  would  seem  unsuited  to 
his  ear.  He  is  told  of  the  countless  evils  caused  by  pride  and  covet- 
ousness ;  he  is  reminded  of  the  necessity  of  checking  his  desires,  of 
the  finer  pleasures  which  belong  to  virtue  alone,  and  of  the  true  happi- 
ness which  attends  it.  On  his  return  home  he  does  not  turn  to  the 
ledgers  of  his  calling,  but  he  opens  the  book  of  Holy  Scripture ;  there 
he  meets  with  sublime  or  affecting  descriptions  of  the  greatness  and 
goodness  of  the  Creator,  of  the  infinite  magnificence  of  the  handiwork 
of  God,  of  the  lofty  destinies  of  man,  of  his  duties,  and  of  his  immor- 
tal privileges." — lb.,  vol.  2,  p.  152.  "  Give  democratic  nations  educa- 
tion and  freedom,  and  leave  them  alone." — lb.,  p.  153.  So  say  I. 
"Give  us  education  and  freedom,  and  leave  us  alone." 

DON    QUIXOTE. 

One  of  the  gentlemen  has  attempted  to  be  witty,  and  has  said  that  I 
seem  to  be  "  imitating  Don  Quixote."  Concerning  this  Don,  I  am  not 
very  bright  in  my  memory.  But  if  I  remember  rightly,  the  Don  rode 
a  sorrel  horse.  In,this  I  do  sometimes  imitate  him ;  but  my  horse  is 
not,  I  think,  so  lean  as  Rosenante.  I  think,  too,  the  Don  was  far  from 
being  a  malignant  man.  If  the  gentleman  intended  to  say  the  same  of 
me,  I  thank  him  for  his  good  opinion.  I  might  admit,  also,  that  the 
fates  of  the  Don  and  myself  had  been  somewhat  similar  in  at  least  one 
respect.  If  I  am  not  mistaken  he  encountered  a  ifind-m\\\  or  two.  I 
am  not  sure  but  that  I  have  done  the  same.  But,  if  I  do  not  forget,  the 
Don  had  a  squire.     In  this  I  am  unlike  him.     I  stand  here  all  alone. 


75 

The  said  squire,  if  I  remember  rightly,  did  often  praise  his  master,  yea, 
highly  applaud  him  for  that,  in  which  others  could  not,  from  want  of 
perspicacity  no  doubt,  see  any  thing  to  commend.  Now,  sir,  who  has 
acted  tlie  part  of  Sancho  Panza  in  this  debate  but  the  very  gentleman 
who  esteems  me  Quixotic?  When  his  colleague  [or  knight]  made  his 
speech,  [or  tilt,]  the  squire,  I  suppose,  for  fear  the  committee  would  not 
s'ee  the  merits  of  his  master,  instantly  rose  and  told  us  that  the  speech 
was  "eloquent,  powerful  and  unanswerable."  Is  not  this  just  like  San- 
cho ?  If  I  remember  rightly,  Sancho  did  also,  on  one  occasion,  undergo 
an  operation  called  "blanketing."  Whether  any  one  here  has  suffered, 
or  is  suffering  any  thing  like  the  same,  I  will  not  even  conjecture,  others 
may  judge. 

HALLUCINATION. 

But  the  Same  gentleman  says  that  I  "  seem  to  be  laboring  under  a 
hallucination."  On  this  point  it  may  suffice  to  say,  that  if  I  labor  un- 
der any  hallucination,  so  did  the  ablest  men  we  ever  had  in  Virginia. 
I  shall  deem  it  sufficient  at  this  point,  to  fortify  positions  previously 
taken,  by  adducing  some  additional  authorities,  which,  I  am  sure,  will 
have  weight  with  the  committee,  and  ensure  respect  from  aU.  I  do  this 
the  more  readily  as  the  opinions  I  shall  quote  are,  in  several  points, 
confirmatory  of  the  general  grounds  I  have  taken  in  this  discussion. 

I  suppose  no  man  thought  Henry  St.  George  Tucker,  as  President  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Virginia,  a  weak  or  visionary  man.  When  he 
resigned  his  place  in  that  court  to  become,  with  great  applause.  Profes- 
sor of  Law  in  our  University,  I  remember  that  the  judges  and  lawyers 
in  that  court  unanimously  passed  resolutions,  which,  I  believe,  were  as 
just  and  true  as  they  were  spontaneous  and  respectful  and  commenda- 
tory. Certainly  they  did  not  esteem  him  as  laboring  under  any  "hal- 
lucination." 

Now,  Sir,  in  the  case  of  Gallego's  Ex'rs.  vs.  Att.  General,  3  Leigh, 
pp.  477,  478,  479,  Tucker,  President,  says :  "  No  man  at  all  acquaint- 
ed with  the  course  of  Legislation  in  Virginia  can  doubt  for  a  moment, 
the  decided  hostility  of  the  Legislative  power  to  religious  corporations. 
Its  jealousy  of  the  possible  interference  of  religious  establishments  in 
matters  of  government,  if  they  were  permitted  to  accumulate  large 
possessions,  as  the  church  has  been  prone  to  do  elsewhere,  is  doubt- 
less at  the  bottom  of  this  feeling.  The  Legislature  knows,  as  was  re- 
marked by  the  counsel,  that  wealth  is  power.  Hence,  the  provision 
in  the  Bill  of  Rights;  hence,  the  solemn  protest  of  the  act  on  the  sub- 
ject of  religious  freedom;  hence  the  repeal  of  the  act  incorporating 
the  Episcopal  cluirch,  and  of  that  other  act  wliich  invested  the  trus- 


76 

tees  appointed  by  religious  societies  with  power  to  manage  their  pro- 
perty :  hence,  too,  in  part  the  law  for  the  sale  of  the  glebe  lands  *  *  *. 
The  Legislature  seems  to  have  been  fearful  that  the  grant  of  any  privi- 
lege, however  trivial,  might  serve  but  as  an  entering  wedge  to  greater 
demands.  Nor  did  this  apprehension  of  the  dangers  of  ecclesiastical 
establishments  spring  up  for  the  first  time, with  our  republican  institu- 
tions. The  history  of  ages  had  attested  the  proneness  of  such  estab- 
lishments to  vast  accumulations  of  property.  (He  here  cites  the  his- 
tory of  England  and  France,  and  adds :]  With  these  examples  before 
our  eyes,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  our  statesmen  have  been  cautious. 
They  have  been  wise  in  their  caution.  The  evil  has  not  sprung  from 
particular  creeds,  or  the  peculiarities  of  a  confession  of  faith.  It 
grows  out  of  the  very  nature  of  the  tiling.  *  *  *  *  Property,  indeed, 
it  [the  church]  need  not  ask  of  the  Legislature.  The  power  to  take 
and  accumulate,  alone,  is  necessary :  all  time  has  shown  that  the  influ- 
ence of  feeUngs  of  devotion  will  do  the  rest.  I  speak  of  those  feel- 
ings which  exist  without  any  undue  influence  from  the  pastor  of  the 
Society.  But  if  we  go  further  and  suppose  it  possible  that  those 
abuses  which  once  have  existed,  may  exist  again,  the  progress  will  be 
more  rapid,  though  not  more  certain.  "What  (says  the  accomplished 
Sir  Samuel  Romilly,)  is  the  authority  of  a  guardian,  or  even  of  a  pa- 
rent, compared  with  the  power  of  religious  impressions  under  the  as- 
cendancy of  a  spiritual  adviser,  with  such  an  engine  to  work  upon  the 
passions  ;  to  inspire  (as  the  object  may  be  best  promoted)  despair  or 
confidence ;  to  alarm  the  conscience  by  the  horrors  of  eternal  misery, 
or  support  the  drooping  spirits  by  unfolding  the  prospect  of  happiness 
which  is  never  to  end?"  ^ 

The  bar  and  the  bench  in  Virginia  have  both  been  elevated  and  dig- 
nified in  our  times  by  one  of  whom  I  am  sure  the  gentleman  on  the 
other  side  will  not  say  he  has  labored  under  any  "  hallucination."  I 
refer  to  Judge  Stanard,  of  the  court  of  appeals,  himself,  like  Judge 
Tucker,  educated  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  having  long  attached  to 
himself,  I  am  told,  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side,  by'  a  most  valuable 
friendship. 
•  What  does  he  say  ? 

In  the  case  of  Selden  et  al.  vs.  Overseers  of  the  Poor,  decided  in  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  Virginia,  and  reported  in  II  Leigh,  Stanard,  judge, 
gave  the  opinion  of  the  court.  Speaking  of  the  time  that  elapsed  from 
the  act  concerning  tlie  glebe  lands  to  the  year  1830,  he  says  (p.  133) : 
"  During  that  period,  one  or  more  applications  have  been  made  to  the 
Legislature,  by  one  or  more  religious  sects,  for  acts  of  incorporation. 


to  enable  tliom  to  hold  and  administer  more  conveniently  for  the  relio- 
lous  objects  of  the  petitioning  sect  property  to  a  limited  amount,  volun- 
tarily  contributed  for  those  purposes.  It  is  well  known  that  such  ap- 
plications encountered  in  the  Legislature  the  twofold  objection  of  their 
incompafibility  with  the  principles  of  religious  freedom,  declared  by 
the  act  of  1785,  and  of  the  inexpediency  of  exercising  the  power  to 
create  such  corporations,  though  it  were  constitutional  to  do  so ;  and 
that  under  the  influence  of  one  or  other  of  these  objections,  or  of.both 
combined,  those  appUcations  were  rejected  by  large  majorities."  He 
then  recites  the  hiBtery  of  the  refusal  to  grant  such  power  by  the  con- 
vention which  in  1829-30  formed  our  present  constitution,  declares  his 
belief  in  the  righteousness  of  the  decision  of  the  court  in  the  case  of 
the  glebe  lands,  &c.  I  recommend  an  examination  of  the  whole  opin- 
ion of  J.  Stanard.  The  other  sitting  members  of  the  court  concurred. 
So  much  concerning  "  hallucination." 

THE    PRESBVTERIANS. 

It  has  been  a§ked  here  and  elsewhere,  Did  Presbyterians  never  seek 
any  corporate  privilege  from  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  ? 

I  answer  frankly,  yes,  some  of  them  once  did,  yet  never  for  an  un- 
defined object,  but  clearly  and  simply  for  a  theological  seminary.  Is 
not  this  very  different  from  seeking  corporate  privileges  for  every  con- 
gregation and  society  which  has  been  or  may  be  formed  ?  I  am  also 
free  to  yrant  that  Presbyterians  are  fallible,  as  all  men  are.  Whether 
they  erred  in  this  case  or  not,  I  will  not  now  discuss ;  but  one  thing  I 
\v\\\  assert,  they  took  the  denial  in  good  temper  and  with  a  good  grace, 
and  never  petitioned  a  second  time  for  the  same  object.  Their  semi- 
nary is  still  unincorporated,  and  so  I  suppose  it  will  remain. 

To  bring  opposition  to  the  measure  before  you  into  disrepute  by  the 
argicmcnfum  ad  hominem,  it  has  been  said  another  State  has  granted 
corporate  powers  to  the  trustees  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.     To  this  I  reply  : 

1.  This  act  of  incorporation  was  passed  some  years  before  I  was 
born,  and,  therefore,  if  it  were  wise  to  seek  it,  I  deserve  no  praise ;  if 
unwise,  no  censure. 

2.  Said  corporation,  though  for  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  can  by  law  hold  property  yielding  only  an 
incom.e  not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars  per  annum.  The  value  of 
all  its  investments  in  May  last  was  less  than  $83,000.  Its  accounts 
and  the  whole  state  of  its  funds  are  published  every  year  in  the  most 


78 

open  manner.     If  it  should  err,  its  errors  and  abuses  must  be  known 
to  the  whole  country. 

3.  Other  churches  have  sought  and  obtained  in  the  same  State,  or  in 
other  States,  the  same  power.  From  the  first  case  reported  in  4 
Wheaton,  it  appears  that  the  Baptists  of  Pennsylvania  were  incorpo- 
rated in  1797,  which  was  prior  to  any  act  of  incorporation  granted  to 
the  trustees  of  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly.  The  Methodists 
have  in  New  York  an  incorporated  book  concern,  which  is  worth  not 
less  than  $700,000,  as  I  have  been  informed.  The  Episcopalians  in 
the  same  State  hold  corporate  property  by  scores  of  millions  of  dollars. 

4.  Where  these  corporate  powers  are  granted  to  one  denomination 
they  create  a  necessity  for  every  other  church  to  seek  the  same.  They 
find  that  as  acts  of  incorporation  are  multiplied,  public  opinion  and  trus- 
teeships furnish  less  and  less  security  to  any  property  they  may  hold. 
Besides,  example  is  contagious,  and  has  an  influence  none  the  less 
powerful  because  silent.  I  have  no  doubt  that  if  you  grant  the  chief 
prayer  of  the  petition,  one  church  after  another  will  avail  itself  of  the 
use  of  it,  until  at  last  those  persons  most  opposed  to  the  principle  in- 
volved will  be  compelled,  in  self-defence,  to  follow  the  example  set 
tliem. 

ECCLESIASTICAL    ASPIRATIONS. 

You  have  been  told  that  "the  Constitution  of  Virginia  shuts  clergy- 
men out  of  legislative  halls,"  and  that  it  must  therefore  be  certain  "  ec- 
clesiastical aspirations  "  that  lead  me  thus  publicly  to  oppose  this  pe- 
tition. On  this  remark  I  have  several  things  to  say.  The  first  is  that 
I  have  hardly  seen  a  more  remarkable  instance  of  feeble  reasoning. 
"  The  law  forbids  murder,  therefore  you  must  not  give  a  man  a  mouth- 
ful of  bread,  for  a  crumb  has  sometimes  killed  a  man,"  wouljl  be  as 
good  reasoning.  I  have  no  objections  to  stating  what  I  think  of  the 
provision  of  our  Constitution,  which  excludes  clergymen  from  a  seat  in 
our  Legislature.  It  is  that  there  are  no  men  more  fit  to  sit  in  that  body 
than  some  clergymen  in  Virginia,  but  if  you  should  offer  them  ten 
thousand  a  year,  you  could  not  induce  them  to  come  there.  These 
men  in  various  churches  I  am  willing  to  trust.  There  may  be  some 
other  clergymen  in  Virginia,  who  would  like  to  be  in  the  Legislature 
even  more  than  to  preach  the  gospel.  If  there  be  any  such,  I  am  glad 
I  do  not  know  them,  and  I  am  unwilling  to  trust  them,  to  make  laws 
or  to  execute  them.  I,  therefore,  regard  the  present  fundamental  law 
as  excluding  no  man,  who  is  fit  and  willing  to  be  there.  It  is  there- 
fore good  in  its  operation,  however  it  may  seem  to  contravene  some 
principles  that  have  been  held  dear  by  Americans.     Of  course  I  am 


79 

speaking  of  ordinary  times.  Nothing  shall  induce  me  to  say  one  word 
which  might  throw  a  shade  over  the  memory  of  Witherspoon,  Ten* 
nent,  Hall,  and  a  host  of  patriotic  and  eminent  divines,  who  served 
their  country  in  the  Senate  or  in  the  field  as  duty  called,  in  the  days  of 
our  glorious  revolution.  When  such  times  return,  I  hope  many  will 
imitate  their  example.  But  may  not  a  clergyman  come  into  this  hall 
and  listen  to  the  debates  ?  May  he  not  present  a  petition  and  memo- 
rial in  respectful  terms  ?  May  he  not  be  heard  at  the  bar  of  the  house  ? 
May  he  not  be  heard  before  a  standing  committee  of  the  house  for  or 
against  a  measure  proposed  ?  If  it  is  proof  of  "  ecclesiastical  aspira- 
tion "  in  a  clergyman  to  ask  the  committee  to  let  our  laws  touching  re- 
ligion alone,  what  is  it  to  ask  the  Legislature  to  change  those  laws  ? 
If  it  be  proof  of  "  ecclesiastical  aspiration"  to  appear  before  this  Com- 
mittee, why  did  the  two  lawyers  opposed  to  me  bring  in  a  clergyman 
to  help  them  out  in  debate  ?  Sir,  "  those  who  live  in  glass  houses 
ought  not  to  throw  stones,"  or,  as  a  friend  has  expressed  it  in  Johnso- 
nian numbers :  "  Those  individuals,  who  are  domiciliated  in  silicic 
messuages  ought  not  to  project  granitic  fragments."  The  course  of 
gentlemen,  thus  involving  all  they  represent,  and  themselves  too,  re- 
minds me  of  Sternhold  &  Hopkins'  version  of  a  part  of  one  of  the 
Psalms  : 

"  He  digs  a  ditch  and  delves  it  deep, 

In  hope  to  hurt  his  brother ; 
But  lie  shall  fall  into  the  pit 

That  he  digged  up  for  other. 
Thus  wrong  returneth  to  the  hurt 

Of  him  in  whom  it  bred  ; 
And  all  the  mischief  that  he  wrought, 

Shall  fall  upon  his  head." 

AN    ATHEIST. 

But,  Sir,  one  gentleman  has  told  you  that  he  has  found  an  atheist 
somewhere,  who  is  on  my  side  of  the  question,  and  therefore,  he  thinks 
I  must  be  wrong.  In  reply  I  will,  ask  him,  1.  If  I  will  find  two  athe- 
ists on  his  side  of  the  question,  will  he  admit  that  he  is  wrong  ?  He 
ought  to,  if  he  is  sincere  in  offering  such  an  argument.  I  have  not, 
however,  gone  about  talking  to  those  be^le-headed  animals,  called  athe* 
ists,  to  get  arguments  for  or  against  my  side  of  the  question.  If  I  had, 
I  suppose  I  should  have  used  much  such  arguments  as  the  gcndeman 
does. 

2.  If  there  be  peaceable,  orderly,  law-abiding  atheists  in  the  commu- 
nity, and  such  men  have  often  lived,  then  I  contend  that  they  are  not 
to  be  annoyed  by  any  legislation  concerning  religion.     If  there  be  but 


■s(J 

Oile  such,  pit}'  jihn,  pray  for  him,  treat  liim  kindly,  live  ^k  bettek 
LIFE  THAN  HE  DOES,  with  iiieeliness  and  fear  give  him  your  reason^  for 
believing  as  you  do  ;  but  do  not  begin  to  goad  him  by  laws,  wKiwi'put 
him  under  ouiou-'  disabilities.  If  there  be  such  an  atheiiot  as  I  have 
described,  I  liope  he  does  agree  Avith  me  in  opposing  the  petition. 

3.  But  the  gentleman's  own  history  for  a  short  time  back  furnishes 
a  full  answer  to  this  argument.  Last  spring  he  was  a  candidate  for..the 
Legislature.  Did  he  then  refuse  the  vote  of  his  old  atheist  friend  ?  I 
I  do  not  know  that  it  was  offered,  but  if  it  had  been,  would  he  have  re- 
fused it?  Yet  to  have  accepted  it  might  have  looked  like  le?guing 
with  atheists.  I  will  yenture  to  say  that  he  took  all  the  legai  votes  he 
could  get  from  any  quarter.  But  this  is  not  all.  \\\  that  contest  there 
was  strong  opposition  from  a  brother  Whig,  and,  it  is  said,  that  I'emo- 
cratic  votes  decided  the  contest  in  favor  of  the  gentleman  before  you. 
Now  if  my  cause  is  not  good  on  Christian  principles  because  an 
atheist  would  vote  with  me,  was  his  cause  good  on  TVh'j  principles 
when  the  Democrats  did  vote  fo7'  him  ?  If  the  point  bears  hard,  let 
the  gentleman  remember  that  he  made  it  himself. 

CHAMBER   COUNSEL. 

But  it  has  been  said  (though  I  cannot  "see  how  it  ca^ts  any  light  on 
the  subject  before  yoa,)  that  I  have  piles  of  books  by  jpe.  and  that  I 
have  been  borrov;ing  books  from  an  eminent  lawyer  in  town.  In  re- 
ply I  say  : 

1.  I  wish  I  could  say  as  m.uch  for  the  other  side.  I  have  noi  seen 
either  of  the  gentlemen  with  a  book  in  his  hand,  except  one,  out,  of 
which  two  lines  were  read.  My  opponents  are  origin;il  geniuses,  who 
poar  far  above  constitutional  law  and  the  history  of  the  world.  They 
contem.n  such  dull  prose  writers  as  have  reco'rded  the  opinions  and 
deeds  of  generations  gon^  by. 

2.  But,  Sir,  if  it  was  intended  to  insinuate  that  I  employed  •'  cham- 
ber counsel"  or  any  person  to  study  my  argument  for  me,  I  can  only 
say  it  is  a'  mistake.  No  man  has  dons  it,  although  several  of  my 
friends  have  been  very  obliging,  some  of  them  Episcopalians  too,  in 
lending  me  books  and  in  giving  me  hints  to  authorities. 

3.  Lord  Bacon  says  :  "The  greatest  trust  between  man  and  man  iS 
the  trust  of  giving  counsel;"  and  I  know  unasked  advice  is  seldom 
well  reccircd.  Yet  my  counsel  is  so  good  that  I  think  it  ought  to  be 
received.  It  is  that  when  this  question  is  next  argued  before  the  Com- 
mittee, gentlemeii  shall  read  the  books  they  have  in  their  own  libi-anes, 
and  then  borrow  some- more  from  lawyers,  clergymen  .or  booksellers, 
and  not  taky  it  for  granted  that  the  Legislative  Committee  will  }  ield  to 


the  personal  authority  of  petitioners.  I  really  regard  this  as  whole- 
some advice,  and  will  very  cheerfully  lend  to  either  of  the  gentlemen 
any  book,  in  my  library. 

SOME    HEAT. 

I  ask  the  attention  of  the  Committee,  for  a  moment,  to  the  energy  (?) 
with  which  my  humble  request,  that  you  will  carefully  deliberate  be- 
fore you  act,  has  been  met.  Argument  can  be  weighed,  and,  if  un- 
sound, may  be  answered.  But  1  cannot  reply  to  such  remarks  as 
these — "infidel  objection,"  "profane  attack,"  (fcc,  &c.  "From  all 
uncharitableness.  Good  Lord,  deliver  us."  I  remember  of  whom  it 
was  said  that  "being  reviled,  he  reviled  not  again."  But  I  call  atten- 
tion to  this  matter  for  the  purpose  of  asking:  If  gentlemen,  who  ap- 
pear before  you  as  humble  petitioners,  feel  free  to  use  such  language, 
what  would  they  not  do,  if  once  they  were  fairly  entrenched  behind  a 
few  millions  of  corporate  property  ? 

As  to  the  sentiment  of  Rousseau  :  "  that  the  man,  who  first  enclosed 
a  field,  was  the  author  of  all  the  social  ills  that  followed,"  which  one 
gentleman  says,  I  "  seem  to  have  adopted,"  I  say  I  abhor  it,  and  he 
knows  that  I  abhor  it,  as  much  as  himself,  his  colleague,  or  any  of  the 
Committee.  Nor  was  there  any  occasion,  much  less  a  cause  for  his 
remark.  I  quoted  from  Paine  a  few  sentences  so  clear,  so  sound,  so 
well-expressed,  that  not  a  gentleman  in  the  house  doubts  the  truth  they 
contahi,  and  for  this  he  would  make  me  responsible  for  a  vile,  an  infa- 
JHOUS  sentiment.  This  is  contrary  to  the  very  first  rule  of  manly  de- 
bate, which  is  "  never  to  impute  to  an  adversary  any  opinion,  which 
he  is  known  to  reject."  This  attempt,  like  the  statement  so  often 
made  by  the  other  side,  respecting  the  origin  of  this  debate,  and  al- 
though corrected  half  a  dozen  times  by  the  Chairman,  still  persisted 
in,  can  do  no  harm  to  m-e,  and  I  predict  it  will  do  no  good  to  my  op- 
ponents or  their  cause. 

CONCLUSION. 

I  hope  I  may  say  that  in  the  remarks  I  have  submitted,  no  offence 
has  been  taken ;  certainly  none  was  intended.  If  I  have  spoken  free- 
ly, I  have  done  only  what  I  am  willing  all  others  should  do ;  if  I  have 
spoken  earnestly,  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  at  stake  must  be  my 
excuse.  I  have  had  one  source  of  considerable  pleasure  in  this  dis- 
cussion. It  has  been  the  conviction  that  if  there  be  fallacy  in  my  ar- 
gument, my  skilful  opponents  are  the  proper  men  to  detect  it ;  and  the 
Committee  is  the  proper  tribunal  to  judge  between  us ;  on  the  other 
hand,  if  Troy  could  be  defended  by  any,  she  could  be  defended  by 
those  on  the  other  side.     I  express  the  wish,  that  the  question  may 


82 

now  bo  settled  by  the  Legislature  for  at  least  half  a  century  to  come  ; 
although  I  am  not  ignorant  that  out  of  doors  it  has  been  declared  as  the 
purpose  of  some  to  agitate  it  from  year  to  year.  In  his  address  to  the 
last  Convention,  Bishop  Meade  says:  (p.  12,  of  Journal,)  "For  my 
own  part,  whatever  may  be  done  bj^  others,  I  shall  continue  to  inform 
the  church  of  Virginia  [I  suppose  he  means  his  own  branch  of  the 
church,]  of  all  such  violations  of  our  just  rights,  and  shall  be  glad  to 
see  the  Convention  uniting,  from  year  to  year,  with  other  bodies,  in 
presenting  our  claims  to  the  liCgislature,  and  making  known  the  griev- 
ances under  which  we  labor.  Perseverance  in  a  cause  so  just  must 
eventually,  by  the  blessing  of  heaA'en,  be  crowned  with  success."  I 
fear  we  shall  see  all  this  efibrt  from  year  to  year.  I  am  sorry  that  we 
shall.  I  can  only  say,  "  if  anv  man,  or  set  of  men  have  a  native  fond- 
ness for  standing  behind  a  tree,  it  is  no  offence  to  me." 

In  conclusion,  I  reciprocate  all  the  personal  kindness,  wliicli  has 
been  expressed  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  ;  and  thank  the  Com- 
mittee for  the  patience  and  courtesy  manifested  by  them  through  the 
whole  discussion. 


